CBS premiered its new Star Trek series "Discovery" on Sunday. The first episode was made available on OTA (over-the-air) CBS stations — but it and all subsequent episodes are available strictly on CBS's All Access streaming service. Cost is $6/month with ads, $10/month ad-free. (NOTE: The second episode was made available immediately after episode 1 aired. Episodes 3-7 will be released weekly, there will be a break, and then the remaining episodes will again be released weekly early in 2018.)
Ars Technica has a review that mostly praised the new show. (There were at least two technical inaccuracies in the review concerning the first episode.)
For those who may not yet have seen it, I kindly ask folks who comment on this story to make liberal use of the <spoiler>don't show this unless they click here</spoiler> tags.
What did you think? Was it entertaining? Did it hold closely [enough] to existing Star Trek canon? Was any 'ideology' change you saw sufficiently warranted?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @07:28PM (6 children)
You're aware that a 2 year difference in a general time statement is insignificant and stupid to point out right?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday September 26 2017, @07:39PM (1 child)
You're aware the words you're typing have meaning, right? As in, the soonest the western powers could have mucked everything up was the 60s.
then = happened later in time
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @07:59PM
Israel wasn't the only thing that happened in the middle east, and much of the real mucking about was later. I'm so SORRY I didn't include a detailed timeline, I didn't think the precise year/month/day would be all that important to the overall point. THANK YOU FOR CORRECTING THE RECORD!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @09:10PM (3 children)
You're aware that was a VERY weak cover up to your ignorance, right? 1948 can just as well be said to be 22 years out from your 50s/60s comment.
The graceful thing would have been to admit your mistake or ignorance. Your response put you in the "oh, he's one of those kind of people" arena.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @09:20PM (2 children)
Nope, not gonna play into the minutiae game. The correction had very little bearing on my point. Grammar / detail nazis are not productive contributors to a conversation. The general point of the middle east getting destabilized in the 50s/60s stands. Just because I included the creation of Israel does not mandate that I must start my general timeframe at 1948.
You can put me in whatever mental category you'd like, doesn't make me wrong or the 2 year correction valid. Now if I'd stated a specific year I'd have been graceful and admit to my ignorance, but that is not what happened. It is more likely a nitpick to try and minimize my point.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @09:35PM (1 child)
LOL! You gave yourself a 20 year window, and you still couldn't hit the target. Then you turn around and still claim victory!
Good God, people, I think DJT is posting anon here!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @11:01PM
who?