www.ditl.org

I'm watching it. I haven't yet decided whether I'm a fan, but I'm giving it a fair chance.

Sonic Glitch wrote:So before I get excited and start posting about different episode/aspects of Star Trek (heaven forbid we discuss a new Star Trek series on a Star Trek forum), I want to do a quick roll call: Who is actually watching the show and who is writing it off as #notmystartrek? Frankly, as much as I'd like to discuss the show the sense I get is that I won't be able to do that without a lot of "it's not like star trek used to be so I don't like it." -- but maybe I'm over-emphasizing the negative.

I am watching it, but mostly just out of curiosity. I don't really see myself as a fan of it, which is why I've actually posted very little about the show since the long first episode review (I wrote a longish review of part 2 and didn't post it).

I don't feel any great compulsion to write articles about it for DITL. Whereas I have to keep reminding myself that I can't put articles up about ships and species from The Orville, much as I'd like to...

Graham Kennedy wrote:

Sonic Glitch wrote:So before I get excited and start posting about different episode/aspects of Star Trek (heaven forbid we discuss a new Star Trek series on a Star Trek forum), I want to do a quick roll call: Who is actually watching the show and who is writing it off as #notmystartrek? Frankly, as much as I'd like to discuss the show the sense I get is that I won't be able to do that without a lot of "it's not like star trek used to be so I don't like it." -- but maybe I'm over-emphasizing the negative.

I am watching it, but mostly just out of curiosity. I don't really see myself as a fan of it, which is why I've actually posted very little about the show since the long first episode review (I wrote a longish review of part 2 and didn't post it).

I don't feel any great compulsion to write articles about it for DITL. Whereas I have to keep reminding myself that I can't put articles up about ships and species from The Orville, much as I'd like to...

Fair enough. I'm basically trying to gauge interest to see if there's going to be any participation if I steal your format and post reviews/discussion topics or if I'm just spitting into the wind.

Well, go for it and see what happens!

I personally am not watching for the sole reason that I refuse to subscribe to CBSAA for only one show, even if the pilot had blown me away. That's why I haven't really commented on any episodes since the first and won't. That said, I vote go for it. I'm genuinely curious to know what people think and what direction it takes. Plus it will give us something to do while Graham creates the Orville sister-site.

DonP wrote:I personally am not watching for the sole reason that I refuse to subscribe to CBSAA for only one show, even if the pilot had blown me away. That's why I haven't really commented on any episodes since the first and won't. That said, I vote go for it. I'm genuinely curious to know what people think and what direction it takes. Plus it will give us something to do while Graham creates the Orville sister-site.

I sympathize. The only way I'm watching it is splitting an account with a friend.

I've been watching on and off. I'm fortunate that in the UK it's being carried via Netflix as we have no real CBS presence so I just get it along with my most valued subscription.

I'm very much in the "indifferent" category. I quite like it, obvious plot holes aside. But I struggle to reconcile it to Star Trek as I know and love.

Reliant121 wrote:I've been watching on and off. I'm fortunate that in the UK it's being carried via Netflix as we have no real CBS presence so I just get it along with my most valued subscription.

I'm very much in the "indifferent" category. I quite like it, obvious plot holes aside. But I struggle to reconcile it to Star Trek as I know and love.

Same here. I probably wouldn't be watching it if I wasn't already paying for Netflix. I do quite like it, but I'm not 100% sure just yet. But I am interested enough to keep watching.

Reliant121 wrote:I've been watching on and off. I'm fortunate that in the UK it's being carried via Netflix as we have no real CBS presence so I just get it along with my most valued subscription.

I'm very much in the "indifferent" category. I quite like it, obvious plot holes aside. But I struggle to reconcile it to Star Trek as I know and love.

I suppose that gets at a discussion question of mine: Is there no room for Star Trek to grow and change as the medium (television) grows and changes? Must it keep doing what it did before to remain "the Star Trek we know and love?"

DonP wrote:while Graham creates the Orville sister-site.

So tempted... so very, very tempted...

Sonic Glitch wrote:

Reliant121 wrote:I've been watching on and off. I'm fortunate that in the UK it's being carried via Netflix as we have no real CBS presence so I just get it along with my most valued subscription.

I'm very much in the "indifferent" category. I quite like it, obvious plot holes aside. But I struggle to reconcile it to Star Trek as I know and love.

I suppose that gets at a discussion question of mine: Is there no room for Star Trek to grow and change as the medium (television) grows and changes? Must it keep doing what it did before to remain "the Star Trek we know and love?"

IMO As long as humanity is being shown as highly evolved morally and ethically (i.e. racism, sexism, ageism, etc., etc. is no longer part of the human condition) then it is Star Trek. Beyond that grow and change to your wildest dreams. Putting Star Fleet personnel in dark and gritty situations and how they deal with those situations without compromising their morals is quintessential Star Trek. Even if Federation citizens are shown in the wrong it is where the moral of the story is illustrated, and there are a lot of those episodes in Star Trek. Otherwise dark, gritty, and edgy (read heavy sarcasm there) is not Star Trek, if that is what you want then go watch virtually any other sci-fi series or movie.

To me, there's certainly room for trek to grow, even in very dark and gritty directions. Change becomes more problematic, because I, and I think most others, hold what we have seen already to be "fact". If a series is set in a known period, it has to conform, at least on a basic level, with those established facts. In the specific case of discovery, nothing about the ship or its mission is known, so the writers can go nuts, as long as they respect the physics and timeline of the ST canon. A new ship and darker storylines doesn't bother me in the least. What bothers me is where they deviate from those established facts, the look and capability of Federation technology being the biggest. And I don't buy the argument that you can't make a show that looks like (or close enough to) The Cage, because in my mind, it's not a choice between New or Old, but between New or Right. Just my two cents, of course.

I got caught to episode 5. And I got to say... it's terrible. Spores? Terrible. And what's with that security chief? Is that the dumbest senior officer in all of Star Trek history? Someone, anybody show me a more moronic senior officer than that? And where the hell was Michael? Just letting her shipmate get fragged? And why do Vulcans care about a creature when billions of lives are at stake, your logic sucks Michael. Go back to Spock School you schmuck. And Klingons have what? Extra sex organs? I can't even imagine what Torres would look like with this new makeup and what the hell could Tom Paris see in her.

The only biological transiting material is my vomit shooting all over this terrible show.

Good video Graham on the ship comparison earlier earlier in this thread.

Monroe wrote:I got caught to episode 5. And I got to say... it's terrible. Spores? Terrible.

I get the impression that the phrase "fresh and different" was used a lot in the development of Discovery. "Let's make the Klingons fresh and different!" and so on.

Trek does technobabble, of course, and over the years it's given us a lot of super-advanced drive systems - warp drive, slipstream, transwarp, etc. But what they all have in common is that they're basically the same thing from a writing point of view... which is that they're essentially like a car engine - you have a technological box that you pour fuel into, some kind of scientific reaction happens, energy is applied somehow, and the ship goes really fast.

I think they wanted something "fresh and different", and figured that they could do that by making the drive system biological in nature. So we get a drive system that depends on trees, and spores, and a big oogity boogity monster.

I kind of applaud the effort, but the trouble is that biology is less inherently plausible as an explanation of this stuff. People know plants and spores, they deal with them on a daily basis, and you have a mountain to climb if you want to convince people that this stuff can throw hundreds of thousands of tons of metal across the universe.

Plus, honestly whilst it's fresh and different for Trek, it also kind of comes across as a rip off of Frank Herbert's Dune Navigators using Melange spice to fold space.

And what's with that security chief? Is that the dumbest senior officer in all of Star Trek history? Someone, anybody show me a more moronic senior officer than that?

The best I can think is that they figured to have what would normally be a typical Redshirt death, but to make it "fresh and different" by having the redshirt have some character moments, with scenes and lines and whatnot before she got offed.

But it was amazingly dumb. She squirts gas in and just assumes it knocked the thing out? And didn't even bother to check? Seriously, wait a minute or two and ask the computer if it's still moving! Turn the lights on in the cell and see if it cringes! Don't just open the door! It's just comically inept.

And where the hell was Michael? Just letting her shipmate get fragged? And why do Vulcans care about a creature when billions of lives are at stake, your logic sucks Michael. Go back to Spock School you schmuck.

I dunno, if we're talking about the Enterprise Vulcans then sure, I can see them not giving a crap. But the TOS Vulcans were pretty pacifist - IIRC, the whole race is vegetarian because they think it unethical to eat meat. And from a strictly logical standpoint, they have exactly one creature to work with. If it dies, that's it, their spore drive is useless - and they have very limited opportunity to study the creature afterwards. So of course it makes sense not to hurt it.

And Klingons have what? Extra sex organs? I can't even imagine what Torres would look like with this new makeup and what the hell could Tom Paris see in her.

Yeah, that was a bit of a weird comment to throw in. They claim these "Klingons" are different because they're some offshoot cult, but to my mind showing a bunch of other houses led by similar "Klingons" demonstrated that to be an outright lie on the part of the producers. Now they're throwing fundamental changes in anatomy at us? I joked earlier that this is "like how Amish people have tentacles"... I guess I should change it to "like how Amish people have two dicks"?

Good video Graham on the ship comparison earlier earlier in this thread.

Thanks. Here's another one for the Klingon "D-7" shot in the recent episode...

Sonic Glitch wrote:

Reliant121 wrote:I've been watching on and off. I'm fortunate that in the UK it's being carried via Netflix as we have no real CBS presence so I just get it along with my most valued subscription.

I'm very much in the "indifferent" category. I quite like it, obvious plot holes aside. But I struggle to reconcile it to Star Trek as I know and love.

I suppose that gets at a discussion question of mine: Is there no room for Star Trek to grow and change as the medium (television) grows and changes? Must it keep doing what it did before to remain "the Star Trek we know and love?"

Absolutely, there is room to grow and change along with television. There is no excuse however to piss over established canon and do so in such a hamfisted, poorly acted and highly contrived way.

ST:DSC seems to be mostly change for change's sake. They could have easily kept the best bits of star trek and maintained compliance with Canon if they didn't insist on changing things for what seems to be the hell of it.