Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GTANet.com

    1. GTA Online

      1. The Cayo Perico Heist
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Frontier Pursuits
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    3. Crews

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

      1. St. Andrews Cathedral
    2. GTA VI

    3. GTA V

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
    5. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    6. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    7. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    8. Portable Games

      1. GTA Chinatown Wars
      2. GTA Vice City Stories
      3. GTA Liberty City Stories
    9. Top-Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

      1. Documentation
    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. Design Your Own Mission
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Movies & TV
      5. Music
      6. Sports
      7. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    3. Gangs

    1. Announcements

    2. Support

      1. Court House
    3. Suggestions

Star Trek


Recommended Posts



"Whose spaceship is this?"
"It's a Bird of Prey, baby."
"Whose Bird of Prey is this?"
"It's Kruge's."
"Who's Kruge?"
"Kruge's dead, baby! Kruge's dead."

Edited by AlienTwo
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...




It's BAAAACK! And my god, it is excellent. Pretty rough stuff included, but really good.


Additionally, now you can get Discovery on Amazon, so this helps widen the audience. It's only the $9.99 commercial free version, and I don't think you can link your old account, you need to quit and re-subscribe.




Spoiler episode discussion, including pics from "Coming up On Discovery:"





#1 thing I noticed, Visual Reboot is confirmed with the wireframe of the Defiant;






Here's the Defiant from the Enterprise episode this was referencing (yes, originally a TOS "The Tholian Web" appearance, but it was just discussed there, not seen), you can clearly see differences in the nacelle pylons, the shape of both hulls and the deflector dish:




Captain Killy is amazing:



Here are 4 major things coming up I'm excited for, Andorians (SIGHTED!), Bearded Vulcans, is that MAYBE Captain Georgiou and lastly Tyler vs Mirror Voq?!


Andorian Sighting:



Bearded Vulcan:






Looks like Tyler vs Voq, but if they are the same... how... mirror... broken...




R.I.P. Dr. Hugh Culber :cry::cry: :




  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Immediate frustrating thought about...



the Defiant:


I actually think there's more potential to be had by saying it started out looking like a regular Constitution-class ship (as seen in the original show, and then Enterprise), but just got turned into an increasingly beefy ship over the years, as befits the flagship of the Empire.


Better that than 'stick some kludge on it, so we can put our own personal stamp on it, and call it the real version from this point on' - never been a fan of that approach to design continuity, since it's just so darn petty. I guess I'll find out when I catch up later...


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I've had this explanation given to me, but for my own personal and selfish reasons, seeing this new design really helps me relax a touch with all the minor differences(if I think of it as a visual reboot)... not that they were killing me, but it's just easier to roll with the changes this way.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I've had this explanation given to me, but for my own personal and selfish reasons, seeing this new design really helps me relax a touch with all the minor differences(if I think of it as a visual reboot)... not that they were killing me, but it's just easier to roll with the changes this way.


I did the same thing with the 2009 movie - if you treat the 'Kelvin timeline', plus 'Old Spock' as ...not being anything to do with the original show, TNG, etc., it all becomes a lot more visually consistent. Doesn't salvage the fact that Orci and Kurtzman can't plot a movie to save their lives, but...


(timely reminded that they're the folks wot wrote the first two Transformers movies, with many of the same problems being present in those, too)

Link to post
Share on other sites

...right - vague, no-plot-details-revealed thoughts:

- the Knights of the Old Republic bit is a better way of handling that particular plot thread than what I thought they'd do - and there's a specific bit that's even shot like the same kind of moment in KotOR.


- the direction in general is some of the best I've seen so far - so no surprise that it's 'Two Takes' in the chair for this one. ;) Although I could do without the 'camera circles round everyone while they do the exposition dump' moments - shouldn't really be getting motion sickness from a 'talking heads' scene... :barf:


- they did that old Trek saw of 'make a sci-fi version of a colloquialism by adding/swapping a word, but keeping everything else the same' - I was thinking about how much that bugs me the other day, and this sure didn't disappoint! :p But again, Trek has always been terrible for that, so at least it's consistent...


- the first bit with Culber and Lorca at the beginning just wound me up - once again, I wish someone would remember things like '

' or similar log entries. That's actually a big complaint I have about Lorca, come to think of it - he's not so much militaristic as a gun-happy loose cannon. If anything someone who was more of an out-and-out soldier might be more 'by the book' about certain things, not less. But in general, I still find the lack of naval (or just professional!) discipline really jarring with this show...


- the plotting and pacing is still iffy, IMO - I'll pause the episode after 10 minutes, and ...oh, wait, I'm half-way through. Compare that to The Orville, which (aside from anything other points of comparison) tends to stick to the 5-part structure of the average older Trek episode - I'll think the episode's almost done, look at the time left, and ...huh, another 15 minutes? Guess there's an extended coda - or a plot twist! - coming up. As it is, Discovery flits between scenes relating to each of the many dangling threads, and so on a per-episode basis, it all ends up feeling a bit insubstantial.

- ...okay, so the '

' was genuinely funny - in a 'Trials and Tribble-ations' kind of way, even. ;)


- I have a horrible feeling there's another 'everything you know about _____ is wrong' thing coming up - although it would explain one thing, I guess...

Edited by Commander S
Link to post
Share on other sites

p much:





If they did do the reveal like Mike talked about that would be cool.


Though I think this show is in a weird place with whatever QT is doing and the likelihood that the Abrams universe has pretty much ended. And when you guys talk about not connecting visually with any of the previous shows/movies...im not sure where this particular show will go in the future. Kinda like a red-headed stepchild this show is. So unless they have some crazy reveal planned that undercuts everything before it's best to not even think of this as a traditional Star Trek show. At least that's my opinion, feel free to disagree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess in one sense the "traditional Trek show" was one of the 90's ones, "Classic" being the 60's, this this new "post-modern" or whatever would fit the bill.


From what I hear, the QT film would be in the Kelvin-verse, although possibly a different incarnation of it...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still reckon there's been a massive missed opportunity for a kind of 'Next Next Generation', where it's the more textbook Trek show - episodic, conceptual framing for each episode, but with a fresh coat of paint.


That, and I reckon there's a lot of stuff that even the Abrams movies assumed people either know or care about when it comes to Trek, and ...I think we need the 'my first Star Trek' show, aimed at people like my kid relatives, who've never seen an episode in their lives, and don't automatically know "beam me up", "warp drive", etc. Not a 'children's show', mind - just a Star Trek that isn't a massive reinvention, deconstruction, 'fresh new take' or anything, and that functions as an entirely stand-alone show, rather than the latest installment in half a century of film and television.


(come to think of it, the only show aside from the original that fits that description is TNG - largely because Gene treated TNG like a do-over as much as a successor show...)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again I don't mind Trek heading in a dark or even a serialized version. I think the RLV video makes some great points about Orville and how much of that is cut-and-paste storytelling. Not everything has to be PG rated and fit in the box just so. What I'd argue is that is has to be good and make sense. I have only watched the non-Pilot Pilot on CBS, thats my only vantage point, but what I saw made no sense at all for a Trek show.



Imagine, if you will, something like the look of a Mad Mad as your reference point for a new Trek. Keep all of that 60's look with the costumes, dials, and gauges, etc. but update it with better CGI and more modern storytelling. Keep half of the fanbase happy with the look being 10 years before ToS, but have a Game of Thrones/Breaking Bad type storytelling for the new comers.


This show however is trying to do too many things at once and not succeeding very well. For a Trek show named Discovery it should be about...i don't know...Discovery! New worlds, new civilizations, and all that jazz. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is more about the Klingon war. There were some good ToS episodes with the Klingons, but the best ones were about the wonder of space. THAT'S what Trek needs to get back to.

Edited by Spaghetti Cat
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have only watched the non-Pilot Pilot on CBS, thats my only vantage point, but what I saw made no sense at all for a Trek show.

You watched less than 5% of the episodes that have been aired so far, I'd highly suggest trying the remainder. Just at least so you know for sure... hell, wait until the last episode (4 weeks from Sunday) and do the 1 week free trial so you can watch it for free.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with what your saying A2, it would be like basing an opinion of TNG solely based on Encounter at Farpoint. Heck TNG didn't really get going till the second season.



I'm just saying, based on that one episode, that CBS really screwed the pooch right out the gate. They put launching a streaming service and assumed Trek fans would just show up to make it a success put before making a good Trek series. Now I don't have a problem with making a TV series work based on the economics at play (I was sorely dismayed at the lack of product placement in the 23rd/24th Century). But this was putting the cart before the horse with the streaming service. Why, for example, not put this on CBS or even Showtime? If CBS still wanted to sell a streaming service have the show air a couple days earlier than when it would come on regular TV, if the true fans wanted their Trek before the regular Joe...boom there you go.


I just don't see the need for a CBS streaming service right now. Besides Discovery, is there any other shows you watch on there?

Edited by Spaghetti Cat
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing. I will NEVER say I agree with the streaming platform, which is sub par.


Buuuuuuuut, there's good news, Amazon now has CBS All Access. So you can watch it through there, same fee (additional to Prime) but it's better than the CBS app.


I'd even be willing to help a trekkie out in terms of watching the show.


PM me for information.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stupid Discovery thought, but you can blame this partly on me reminiscing about original BSG and Quantum Leap lately:

...what if there's a last effort to use the spore drive and get home (using a mix of the spore drive and data from the Defiant), but like with the jump that got them into the Mirror Universe in the first place, it doesn't quite go as planned - ?


Cue another 'this is both where we're supposed to be, and yet ...not, somehow' moment, and an incoming ship. It's apparently a Federation ship, but the ID doesn't match - nothing about this universe does, in fact. Once again, Discovery has jumped into another parallel reality, instead of back home - but where are they this time?




(yeah, no - that's almost definitely not happening, and like with things like These Are The Voyages, sacrificing the final moments of one series in order to indulge in fan-w*** for another series that many viewers won't have watched is Bad Screenwriting 101, right there...)

Edited by Commander S
Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno man, I've been thinking this might become a "Starship: Sliders" type show and I'm ok with it. Honestly.


Commander... what is the "fan-w***"? I can't for the life of me figure it out. For the record, I thought These Are The Voyages is a salvageable episode if they take out Trip's death (13 year old spoiler warning) and the whole Riker/Troi parts.


But as/is that episode is too painful on too many levels.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In a way, TATV is worse than fan-w***: it's two out-of-touch showrunners' idea of what they think is 'good fanservice' - literally described as a "valentine to Star Trek fans". :dontgetit:


That's a bad idea to begin with (like every attempt at trying to recreate TWoK, because 'it's a fan-favourite'), but then B&B ended up taking the characters and more-or-less reverting their personalities almost back to Season 1 levels, because most of the growth over later seasons had been handled by other people.


But yeah, beyond all that, beyond the whole episode being rendered pointless by it being a holodeck simulation (making it barely more true to the real NX-01 crew than L.A. Noire is as a slice of actual history...), the most damning part, and probably the final word on why the B&B era was doomed to fizzle out like it did, was the decision to round out the entire show (and most likely that entire 18-year production run, starting with TNG) with ...a framing device that only worked if you were familiar with the events of The Pegasus.



...and the problem with that is less the fundamental flaw of 'is the average Enterprise viewer really going to know/care about some arbitrary TNG episode from 11 years ago?', and more the implicit assumption from B&B that the ENT audience really was made up of folks who'd been watching since TNG, picked up with Voyager as soon as one show ended and the other began, and then the same again with Enterprise. It's boneheaded from either angle - because if you're assuming that your audience is the same one from two shows and over ten years ago, then you're also dismissing the idea that maybe some of ENT's viewers were folks who started watching Trek with Enterprise. Nope - and that's why 'one of the most important milestones for the main characters of the show' is treated as less important than 'that guy from another show comes in to learn an valuable lesson about stuff'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But you never define Fan-w***.

I don't know what this is. Help me Obi-Wan Kenobi, you're my only hope.


Oh, right - thought you meant 'what specific example of fan-w***ery are you getting at with TATV?', not 'what is fan-w*** when it's at home?'. :pp


See, I like to keep my forum posts tidy, even if GTAForums auto-correct doesn't deem those words sufficiently crude to warrant kicking in - 'w***' in this instance rhymes with 'Rhino tank'. ;)


And going back to the 'Discovery ends by them jumping into a parallel universe, except ...it's the original Trek universe - see, no continuity errors, they were in a different timeline to begin with!' idea, that's 'fan-w***', because it's basically like fan-fiction, but in a ...self-gratifying way. Nods and winks are perfectly fine, skilfully playing with the entire canon is great - but just swapping 'good plotting' with 'That Thing You Recognise From The Other Thing™', either so that the writers can give themselves a high-five for their superior geek cred, or because they think that name-checking fan-favourite stuff is all you need to do to win the approval of said fans? Haha - sorry, but no dice...


(ultimate example I can think of, that's both for the gratification of the writer, and to mine Nerd Culture Respect Points from readers: Ready Player One... :sui:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love you, man,but it's even more simplistic than that. I don't know what letters you're blocking out, at think point I fully understand the concept, just not the word. ;-)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

...wait, really? W***, rhymes with 'Sherman tank', adj., slang (mainly from the UK) for jacking off - never come across that? :blink:


Clearly haven't spent much time winding up random British NPCs in GTA V, then... ;)



Back on-topic, and tangentially related to griping about B&B's handling of Enterprise, I've only just found out about longtime Trek author Diane Carey, and her taking out her frustrations with the show in the novelisations:






(...I really need to get myself a copy of that book...)

Edited by Commander S
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

While I don't disagree with Commander about the fan-wankery aspect of previous shows like Enterprise...



(which brings up another point, so hang on. Voyager, Enterprise, and now Discovery were/are all on little watched platforms. Giving the need to go either the spectacle route or the wanking route, either are bad choices, but are really due to the platform they were on. I know it's a long way from the syndication days of TNG and DS9, but at least they were on channels that most people could get (for free). The latter seasons of both TNG and DS9 the syndication in my area moved to different channels at different times (in the days before the DVR) but at least they were available. I'm not sure how many people had the Paramount Network when Voyager came out for example. Returning to the previous rant.)


...I think the issue has to do with the core production of the show. And it can really be traced back to one person: J.J. Abrams.


Whoa, wait, put away the torches, let me explain. I could defend half of Star Trek: Into Darkness as a great film. It's a really good action-packed film with good characters and some memorable scenes. The first section on the alien planet with the volcano, great. The latter parts with the battle above Earth and the plunge into San Fransisco (though I could do without the chase at the end) great stuff! I don't even mind it being a (spoilers for an old movie) re-make of Star trek II. It was a fine update with an interesting twist...well except the super blood. J.J. Abrams is good director of action scenes and does a fine job with his casting choices.


BUUUUUUUT the other half of the film is a steaming pile of dog crap. Basically it boils down to the 'Mystery Box' twist that Abrams is famous for. While I don't mind a mystery ON OCCASION, using it as a crutch EVERY SINGLE TIME is just bad bad writing. Trying to keep Sherlok Homes as Kahn a secret was just plain stupid, even J.J. admitted that. The frozen people in the torpedos, the super blood, are all just stupid 'gotcha' moments.


I feel like Discovery takes all of these 'Mystery Box' twists and uses that as the entire purpose of the series. It's like the writers are sitting back and laughing "ha ha, you thought x was true, nope!" Using that constant rug pulling as a replacement for something substantive to say. Which says to me that the people in-charge of this show don't really care about their viewers. They just want something shocking...and thats it.


So while I appreciate the offer A2 I feel like I would just hate-watch this show just like those in-charge are hate-writing this show. Once again my .02

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just hard to take an opinion about the inner "mysteries" of this show with any sincerity seeing as you don't know them at all. In my opinion, all the mysteries of Discovery have been pretty heavily telegraphed, and all of them have been guessed by the fan community (at least the podcasts, facebook groups and twitter feeds I pay attention to)to the point that they really aren't "mysteries" at all. It's just a fun narrative thread to follow, and with this week's episode, I'm half (more than) hoping for a sort-of anthology series that was discussed early on with the Discovery popping in and out of different parallel universes, hopefully ending up in OUR post-Voyager/Nemesis world.




I don't think it feels at all "hate written", but this is a pointless argument. Just had to make that statement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's hate-writing, either - I get the feeling that the folks behind it are genuinely proud of what they're doing, and some of the individual episode writers have gone to surprising length to care about the little details - such as Jordon Nardino's neat approach to coming up with the Terran Emperor's various titles and honourifics). And that's one thing that does work really well - a lot of the moment-to-moment stuff.


...but I also agree that the whole Abrams-style 'Mystery Box' approach (partly due to this being a Lost-style serialised show, partly because the main man in charge is longtime Abrams writer Alex Kurtzman, wot did the 2009 movie and Into Darkness) is ...eh, not really working. I mention Into Darkness, because that's a perfect example of the same thing - stuff where it's all perfectly exciting in the moment, but falls apart when you stop to think "okay, so how did _____ account for ______ to happen like that?". Shades of the best line in a review of Prometheus (written, unsurprisingly, by another Bad Robot veteran, and writer on both Lost and STID: Damon Lindelof), describing David as "is he an expert in things that have never happened?". :p

I first started noticing things like this with the whole tardigrade/spore drive thing - the whole design of the ship revolves around tech that isn't complete, is potentially fatal, and yet is built with areas that will convenently fit a ...giant multiverse-hopping tardigrade that is attracted to spores, and just happened to fortuitously wind up on the Glenn because it was attracted to the scent of mushrooms. What were the odds? :rol: Or Lorca's entire plan to return home - probably didn't involve Harry Mudd, or fighting in the war for however long. How did he find out about Discovery in the first place (seeing as there was apparently no Mirror counterpart with no comparable spore drive)? Again, shades of STID, where half of the plot can be described as 'if Khan was supposed to be doing _____ because _____, then why did he seemingly do the opposite by doing ______, only to do ______?'


The answer is 'because moment-to-moment, everything is a neat twist, and feels like a re-framing of previous information'. In other words, you've got to remember the events of previous episodes just enough for the switcheroo to resonate, but not so much that you spot the implausibilities and incredible coincidences. And like I said, I get the feeling that the team are genuinely proud of the twists and turns, and how all the stuff from the early episodes 'made sense in the end' - except I really don't think that it will all hold up when watched from start to finish with the benefit of hindsight.

I'm not enjoying the recent attempts at topicality, either - I was actually really, really hoping Discovery would do some more of that from the off (instead of the more 'space opera' approach), but suddenly dropping in 'Make the Empire Glorious Again' without doing anything with that, or doing anything to earn it just felt glib, IMO. In the Treks of old, that'd be part of some much larger allegory serving as the story-of-the-week, but moments like that amount to nothing more than 'That Thing You've Heard Of' (bit like why Alice Eve's character was 'Carol Marcus' in STID - no reason other than a name-check), almost like they can let the associated connotations do the heavy lifting, and the story can take credit for things it isn't actually doing or being.


I will say the fight sequence was glorious, though - a bunch of people have griped at how it's implausible how the Emperor would be able to fight that well, or how over-the-top the choreography was, but ...c'mon. I thought it was a bit of a waste having Michelle Yeoh in in the show for only a brief time, so I'm glad/relieved to see she was actually there to do a lot more, as well as remind people that she's a monster when it comes to fight scenes. Some folk have said that that one kick was implausible - nah. That's what you pay Ms. Yeoh to do - that, and go from 'good grief, she really needed to have done a guest spot on TNG years ago' to 'fairytale villain' and nail every scene. :cool: Same goes for Jason Isaacs, Doug Jones, etc. - the plotting/showrunning of this show might have me a bit under-enthused, but watching terrific character actors deliver a belter week after week is one of the things where Discovery is a genuine treat, IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Not sure if I'm included as a 'doubter', but ...it's okay, compared to the various ones from the Abramsverse (think there's three variants in total: the 2009 redesign, the tweaks made after getting shot up in STID, and the new ship from the end of Beyond). Shades of some of the attempts as guessing what the 2009 ship was going to look like, in fact - things like the bulkier nacelle assemblies, the gunmetal hull colour, etc.


I could nitpick things like how practical the split struts are, in terms of crawlspaces and whatnot (that sort of thing is what I like to call the 'car design' approach to spaceship design - cool pseudo-aerodynamic features over functionality, akin to fake air vents on sports sedans... :p), but my main issue is ...why redesign it at all? Update the model, sure - add more fine detail, match the lighting and stuff to fit the Discovery aesthetic, but to throw out the old ship entirely? That's a first, considering TNG, DS9 and even Enterprise still honoured the original design. Still looks better than a lot of the other ships in the show, IMO - and could have been worse, considering the Defiant wireframe from earlier in the season - but still... :/



I'm more bothered by even doing the Enterprise at all, personally - feels like a weird mix of 'come back for Season 2!' fanservice teasing, and (like with so much of the reset button stuff in this last episode), an attempt to reframe the show as more of 'that thing you like!', which ...eh, that extended sojourn in to the Mirror Universe caused problems by doing that already. There's been a fair amount of scuttlebutt about how much of the season was retooled on the fly after Bryan Fuller left, and I can't help feeling that the more fanservice-y second half was a result of that. And as fun as some of that was, in the end, it just detracted from the war story, resulting in that arc getting tied up far too briskly and neatly, IMO. If that's a hint as to where things have finally settled with the production post-Fuller, I'm not really sure I dig it - a flip-flopping mix of winks and nudges to classic Trek on the one hand, and a 'not your father's Star Trek' attitude on the other, where it's okay that Sarek effectively condoned a war crime, because someone said an uplifting speech, and LOOK AT THE SHINY THING YOU RECOGNISE!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

...okay, that explains a few things:






One is a better look at the John Eaves redesign - the other is John Eaves' unused concept art for [a more Constitution-class-eque take on] the NX-01...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...

New trailer from NYCC.  Looks like the Klingons grew their hair back, Spock cemented his place among the Galaxy's hipsters with a beard and the classic design of the Klingon D7 has returned.

Of course, as will all Disco news the chorus of the #canonites rages in the black; "NOT MY TREK"

I, for one, am excited for more Star Trek and hope for it's continued success so we can get more post-Nemesis series. 



Link to post
Share on other sites

See, the stuff like 'Klingons have hair, now, but probably still have four nostrils, and eh, whatever' is a bit like how I just finished Assassin's Creed: Syndicate, and ...yeah, I'd have preferred if Charles Darwin's voice actor wasn't quite so obviously Canadian, but it's not a deal-breaker. It's a minor thing that gets a sigh, but fine.


I'm more bugged by the tone - it's all looking a bit too 'whizz-bang space opera' again, just like the Abrams movies. That, and Spock getting visions about some 'red angel' or what-have-you - yeah, I'm sure it'll be explained along similar lines to 'God' in TFF or the Prophets in DS9, but so far, it's being teased more like a vaguely-mystical MacGuffin, and after season 1, and with Alex Kurtzman (he of the earlier Bay Transformers movies, the first two Abrams Trek movies, and that gawd-awful 'Dark Universe' Mummy movie) firmly in the driving seat (for all of CBS' new Trek projects, apparently - including that new Picard one), I don't really have all that much faith that it'll go anywhere interesting.


I really do just miss the more episodic, 'each episode tackles a philosophical wrinkle' approach to TV Trek (at best, at least - I'm aware that things like A Night In Sickbay happened! :p) - and while The Orville apes that structure, it's largely because most of the plots are riffing directly on specific Trek stories that did the same first, so it probably only deserves partial credit, there. I dunno - too much to ask for new Trek (with all mod cons, and a fresh look) with the old format/attitude?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.