Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Thursday October 12, @08:56AM   Printer-friendly
from the boldly-go dept.

Phoenix666 and looorg have both written in with stories about 'Star Trek: Discovery':

'Star Trek: Discovery' Producers: Be Patient With Us

The Fine Article contains spoilers for those who haven't seen the show:

The lightness and easygoing chemistry among the "Discovery" cast present a stark contrast with the characters of "Discovery." In the first few episodes, the show has turned Burnham into a shunned mutineer, introduced a suspicious skipper in Capt. Gabriel Lorca (Jason Isaacs) and given us an arrogant and snappy scientist in Lt. Paul Stamets (Anthony Rapp).
star-trek-discovery-starfleet

It's the darkness of the characters and the background, which is set amid a war with the Klingons, as well as potentially continuity-bending aspects like Burnham being the adoptive daughter of Sarek, Spock's dad, that have some longtime Trekkies nervous.

If you're among those worried about the changes brought on by "Discovery," the producers have some advice for you: Just wait a little bit.

"We are canon," executive producer Alex Kurtzman said in an interview Saturday. "You'll have to be patient with us."

Kurtzman addressed the notion that the show would be grittier, assuring fans that the core themes of Star Trek remain.

Is it Game of Thrones in Space?

Windows into the Future

So this is a sure sign of the apocalypse. Windows will still be around in 2256 according to Star Trek. Guess we have to wait for that year of the Linux desktop for a few hundred more years.

https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2017/10/3/16412372/star-trek-discovery-cbs-windows-code-command-line


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough

Mark All as Read

Mark All as Unread

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 4, Funny) by isostatic on Thursday October 12, @09:11AM (2 children)

    by isostatic (365) on Thursday October 12, @09:11AM (#581040) Journal

    Is it Game of Thrones in Space?

    4 episodes in and not a nipple, let along a gratuitous sex scene with Bunham, Tilly and Saru, so I would say no.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12, @09:28AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12, @09:28AM (#581047)

      So, fundamentally, it is exactly the same as GoT.

      The thing getting fucked is your wallet.

      • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday October 13, @07:06AM

        by isostatic (365) on Friday October 13, @07:06AM (#581610) Journal

        "Free" TV costs the US public $70b a year in increased prices of products that are advertised. That's $526 per household.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 12, @09:31AM (31 children)

    I've seen every episode of every Trek series at least ten times by now (some episodes dozens of times), so I obviously don't mind a little cultural reflection in my Trek. When the people in charge of a project start calling it a vehicle for their messages though, they can suck a dick. I'll be watching The Orville instead.

    --
    Save Ferris!
    • (Score: 5, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12, @12:25PM (14 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12, @12:25PM (#581099)

      > When the people in charge of a project start calling it a vehicle for their messages though, they can suck a dick.

      It has become a crusade of mine to demonstrate that TV need not be violent to be exciting... I wanted to send a message to the television industry that excitement is not made of car chases. We stress humanity, and this is done at considerable cost. We can't have a lot of dramatics that other shows get away with -- promiscuity, greed, jealousy. None of those have a place in Star Trek.

      -- Eugene Wesley Roddenberry [nytimes.com]

      Our shows are about the best of humans solving problems and learning about their own humanity. In our story sessions, we talk about how the world should be. Our characters symbolize where humans could be if they wanted to be.

      -- Eugene Wesley Roddenberry [tcm.com]

      'Star Trek' was an attempt to say humanity will reach maturity and wisdom on the day that it begins not just to tolerate but take a special delight in differences in ideas and differences in lifeforms.

      -- Eugene Wesley Roddenberry [brainyquote.com]

      'Star Trek' speaks to some basic human needs: that there is a tomorrow - it's not all going to be over with a big flash and a bomb; that the human race is improving; that we have things to be proud of as humans.

      -- Eugene Wesley Roddenberry [brainyquote.com]

      'I was tired of writing for shows where there was always a shoot-out in the last act and somebody was killed. 'Star Trek' was formulated to change that.

      -- Eugene Wesley Roddenberry [brainyquote.com]

      • (Score: 3, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 12, @12:38PM (5 children)

        Which might have been a problem if what he said and what got done were remotely the same.

        --
        Save Ferris!
        • (Score: 2, Funny) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday October 12, @01:35PM

          by Ethanol-fueled (2792) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 12, @01:35PM (#581123) Homepage Journal

          If they're gonna go all diversity on us, why not take it to the extreme and stop pussyfootin' around? I want to see captain D'Jarius who prefers to carry disruptor pistols stolen from his enemies tucked in his waistband rather than phasers.

          " Kom-PUTAH! Gibs me dat fried chikkin! " * takes bite * " SHeeeeit....ain't like mammy usedta make! "

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by BasilBrush on Thursday October 12, @02:00PM (3 children)

          by BasilBrush (3994) on Thursday October 12, @02:00PM (#581126)

          It sounds exactly what was done, and it wasn't a problem. Face it, Star Trek is basically socialist. If you ignore the crap that was DS9 and Enterprise.

          --
          Hurrah! Quoting works now!
          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by rleigh on Thursday October 12, @05:51PM

            by rleigh (4887) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 12, @05:51PM (#581241) Homepage

            I would argue that DS9 also fits this mould, but with a difference. TOS and TNG were set squarely in the federation, a quasi-utopia with occasional interaction with other species. DS9 sets the same people in a different context: a distant outpost in the aftermath of a war where people on both sides of the conflict have to live with their history and its influence on their present and future, and where material needs and money are still a reality. It's easy to be "good" in a utopia. DS9 often constrasts the two conditions, and what has been gained and lost by both, and how other cultures with different social norms interact with it; while different I really liked it, and I think it's got even better with age. It allowed them to explore material which would otherwise have been difficult (religion, damagoguery), yet still was ultimately aspirational, about seeing the best of humanity even in bad circumstances.

            This has been done by others as well. Take Ian M. Banks "Culture" novels. Like Trek, the Culture meta-civilisation is super advanced, and they live in a utopia with all material needs taken care of. But stories about perfect people in perfect worlds aren't intrinsically very interesting. So each of his novels looks at the Culture from different perspectives, to give insights into them which would otherwise not be apparent. This includes primitive species (Inversions), vastly more advanced races (Excession), developing species and co-civilisations (Matter, Surface Detail, The Hydrogen Sonata), enemy civilisations (Consider Phlebas, Look to Windward, Player of Games) and cultures which develop along different lines (Against a Dark Background). Superbly done, and it also reveals the dark side of utopia and meddling with other civilisations even with the best of intentions, which is touched on a little by Trek, but not to the same extent.

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12, @06:05PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12, @06:05PM (#581250)

            True enough. But as a kid it taught me more or less why socialism would never work now, maybe in 400 years sure, but not now. People there were nothing like people I saw in the real world, and I was just a kid mind you but I could easily tell the difference. Their MO was totally different, they were driven by things which I found impossible to comprehend. I saw the technology that enabled their lifestyles, and it was PURE MAGIC to me. Sure if we had magic now we can have a go at socialism, why not. I also noted later the glaring issues that were never addressed. Nowhere does it say what the population of Earth was. Picard's brother owned a vineyard, but in socialist utopia who decides ownership? I thought there was no land-owners. So on and so forth.

            If anything, StarTrek exposed socialism as fantasy.

            • (Score: 4, Informative) by BasilBrush on Friday October 13, @12:29AM

              by BasilBrush (3994) on Friday October 13, @12:29AM (#581454)

              If you thought people don't own stuff in socialism, including land, then the problem is that you don't know what socialism is. You've confused it with communism.

              Socialism is about how we work, and what for and about making sure everyone is provided for. But it does not make everyone equal. It's not intended to.

              --
              Hurrah! Quoting works now!
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12, @02:27PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12, @02:27PM (#581140)

        So, Star Trek is about Marry Sues being all perfect. Got it.

        • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday October 12, @04:24PM

          by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday October 12, @04:24PM (#581200)

          They're not Mary Sues if they're the entire crew.

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Thursday October 12, @02:42PM (1 child)

        by Grishnakh (2831) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 12, @02:42PM (#581147)

        Our shows are about the best of humans solving problems and learning about their own humanity. In our story sessions, we talk about how the world should be. Our characters symbolize where humans could be if they wanted to be.

        Exactly, and this is why the earlier ST shows were so great: they didn't show humans as the nasty, evil, violent, frequently incompetent, back-stabbing assholes that they really are in this universe. Instead, they showed humans at their very best, working together to solve difficult problems, establishing peaceful relations with other civilizations where possible, and in general doing good, and doing so with great competence at their jobs. That's completely and utterly realistic of course, as real humans aren't like that, but it's what I wish humans were like, and why I like watching Star Trek (TOS, TNG, etc.) From everything I've seen and read about Discovery, it just isn't like this. There seems to be one good character (the captain), and she gets killed off in the 2nd episode. The main character they focus on is entirely unlikable and does not symbolize how any decent human would want to be.

        • (Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Friday October 13, @12:42AM

          by BasilBrush (3994) on Friday October 13, @12:42AM (#581461)

          What you say is all true. But it looks like there will be a series long, or even multi-series arc to get the culture to where it was at the start of TOS.

          It seems like they've knocked Michael down right at the start, in order to build her up. They have set up a story of redemption. And, it being storytelling, her personal redemption will likely be representative of the whole federation's redemption.

          --
          Hurrah! Quoting works now!
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12, @05:27PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12, @05:27PM (#581229)

        I was calling him Chris before (Like Tolkien's son) because I couldn't remember his damn name and because he was kind of an asshole.

        I don't remember if it was one of the fanfiction things or something else, but he doesn't care about pushing anything but copyright law with Star Trek. He's one of those second generation IP whores who doesn't have a real idea in his own head, but the money is good and he's willing to suck on whatever to get more of it.

        Orville kind of jumped the shark for me with the Time Travel episode. Mostly because of him closing the wormhole with that lady still on his ship, rather than throwing her through first then closing it, since either the event happened and she existed and should now be stuck in their timeline, or she existed and should be trapped in her own now-modified timeline with the wormhole collapsed, but by having her disappear like that either he blatantly murdered her knowing she would be erased when it collapsed, or he didn't and time should have reverted with no knowledge of the events, and thus the events not happening, which means they were destroyed in that 'dark matter storm'.

        This is why it annoys me when they choose to throw in time travel without taking the time to think of all the logical issues it causes to the past, future, and present of the episodes/show.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12, @06:06PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12, @06:06PM (#581252)

          You're right. That is THE hallmark of time travel: it's logical consistency. It simply doesn't make sense once you get rid of that. I mean, come on, we've got years of time travel experience to base that on!

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 13, @11:30AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 13, @11:30AM (#581695)

          Gene Roddenberry died in 1991 (hence the quote from his obituary).

        • (Score: 2) by jasassin on Saturday October 14, @09:01AM

          by jasassin (3566) <jasassin@gmail.com> on Saturday October 14, @09:01AM (#582218) Journal

          Mostly because of him closing the wormhole with that lady still on his ship, rather than throwing her through first then closing it

          My mom asked me the same question. I answered, since she was from the future and that future no longer exists that doesn't mean she doesn't exist in the future. It just means the future changed and so did the past. She may very well be alive 900 years from then. Or, maybe her great great great (10 times) grandparents never ended up meeting.

          --
          jasassin@gmail.com Key fingerprint = 0644 173D 8EED AB73 C2A6 B363 8A70 579B B6A7 02CA
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by looorg on Thursday October 12, @12:47PM

      by looorg (578) on Thursday October 12, @12:47PM (#581106)

      I recall us, as in it being on Soylent when ST:D premiered about a month ago -- but I'm slightly to lazy to dig up the thread right now, having a talk about the Discovery vs The Orville back then to. I also still believe that The Orville is the more "trek" series of the two, even a month in. That said I think ST:D has become better -- it just isn't Star Trek, if this had been just any old space sci-fi it would have been better. But by calling it or saying that it is Star Trek it raises expectations that it clearly can't deliver.

      Last episode of Orville was great. Time traveling babe gets banged by the Captain, Kirk-style. It also had an interesting story. The practical joke bit was quite funny.

      In the fourth episode I think Discovery actually had it's first what I would consider to be Star Trek moment, sadly it lasted about half a scene and then it went away -- Burnham figures out that the ripper monster has a connection to the spores and feeds it spores while the security officer on the ship is revealed to be an actual red shirt even tho her uniform was blue. It then quickly returned to the usual Discovery gloom and doom setting. They know now that the "monster" is harmed every time they use its ability but they clearly don't care, or it's a worthwhile sacrifice. It might also explain tho why the spore-jump-drive (or whatever they call it) isn't in any other Treks, it requires that monster to work and if it dies then so does the spore-jump-drive. But still they are in essence torturing or hurting another being for their own gains which just seems quite un-Trek like.

      That said for the over all setting there has been a plausible explanation given, I don't recall exactly where I read it now. Anyway the explanation given that hasn't been revealed in the show (it might never be cause it might be incorrect) is that the Discovery is part of Section 31, the secret spook black ops section of Star Fleet. Which in some sense might explain something and the weird dark and gloomy setting. There have been things hinted at it but not flat out said yet. But with the correct filter it might makes sense. In the third episode you have the prisoners commenting on the black badges the guards have.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_31 [wikipedia.org]

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by theluggage on Thursday October 12, @03:33PM (4 children)

      by theluggage (1797) on Thursday October 12, @03:33PM (#581166)

      I've seen every episode of every Trek series at least ten times by now (some episodes dozens of times), so I obviously don't mind a little cultural reflection in my Trek

      Yet, from the start of TOS, many, many episodes were thinly disguised morality plays.

      Do you think the fact that the original Enterprise bridge crew included a black female officer (and, in the original pilot, a female first officer), an Asian, a Russian and an alien was just an accident of colour-blind casting? How about TNG with a disabled guy and a ship's councillor effectively acting as a senior officer? DS9: Black commander, transgender (sort of) science officer; Voyager: Female captain, black Vulcan, native American first officer... Never could work out why they didn't make Archer gay (mind you - all that water polo...)

      I've been enjoying Discovery and certainly haven't seen any more "political correctness" than is consistent with Trek tradition. Yup, the main protagonist is a black woman - deal with it. The only prejudice that she's shown fighting is the little matter that she's a mutineer who arguably got thousands of people killed. Yes, her commanding officer is a white male... who apparently respects her and has given here a massive break that has nothing to do with her race or gender. The main person to give her grief - and pull off the classic macho ignore the woman's advice, rush in and get hurt move - so far has actually been another black woman.

      The character set-up is actually very much inspired by the Kirk/McCoy/Spock trio - Burnham has Lorca on one shoulder, appealing to the "cold equations - the end justifies the means" part of her nature and Stamets on the other, opposing the abuse of science for war. I think the writers know what they are doing.

      As for the "white Klingon" - the twist is that he's a persecuted minority among his own people (remember the TOS story with the half-white/half-black people?)

      I think one distinguishing factor from "old" Trek - which is a post-Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones thing - is that we're not necessarily being expected to love or hate any of the protagonists.

      Honestly, the main problems I have are: (A) pull a "Red October" crossfade already and let the Klingons speak bloody English. Subtitles are fine when actors understand what they are saying and can put feeling into their words - not when they're talking gibberish. (B) Why the obsession with prequels? Discovery could easily have been set post-Voyager. It just creates problems with canon and anachronistic technology. Its already clear that they're gong to have to push the canon reset button at the end of Discovery.

      Mind you, I'm in the UK and getting it bundled with Netflix... The way it is distributed in the US is what will kill it.

      • (Score: 2) by Taibhsear on Thursday October 12, @03:42PM

        by Taibhsear (1464) on Thursday October 12, @03:42PM (#581174)

        As for the "white Klingon" - the twist is that he's a persecuted minority among his own people (remember the TOS story with the half-white/half-black people?)

        Also the albino Klingon from that DS9 episode "Blood Oath," which I assumed the ST:D character was an homage to.

      • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday October 12, @04:20PM (2 children)

        by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday October 12, @04:20PM (#581197)

        Never could work out why they didn't make Archer gay (mind you - all that water polo...)

        Dominic Keating said that canonically nobody has said so, but he certainly played Malcolm as gay. Before Discovery, apparently Trek has never had an officially gay character on it?

        --
        "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 Thursday October 12, @07:29PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12, @07:29PM (#581303)

          Some people don't consider it canon, but in the last Trek movie ("Beyond"), Sulu has a husband and an adopted daughter. It was a nod to George Takei who is gay, but Takei didn't like Sulu being gay because he always considered Sulu as a heterosexual and that opinion was made to the public.

          Lots of allusions, and even a same-sex kiss between Dax and her former wife on DS9, but I can't think of anything else right now.

        • (Score: 2) by chromas on Thursday October 12, @08:35PM

          by chromas (34) on Thursday October 12, @08:35PM (#581332)

          played Malcolm as gay

          How does he do that? Is he a method actor?

    • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Thursday October 12, @04:09PM (7 children)

      by meustrus (4961) <meustrusNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday October 12, @04:09PM (#581190)

      I've been watching The Orville and not ST:D (mainly because I'm not signing up for CBS All Access), and I'm starting to wonder which one is really pushing social messages after Ep 3: The One Where The Genderless Species Has Females For Some Reason. It was so cringeworthy to see the crew of The Orville 1) have no concept of the Prime Directive, 2) have very little understanding whatsoever of Moclan culture or law despite it being culturally and legally integrated into their federation "Union", 3) share a remarkably human view of gender with a species that was supposed to be genderless, and 4) base their entire anti-surgery side of the arguement on nothing but obvious logical fallacies.

      From what I've heard, at least ST:D does a good job at making social commentary.

      --
      If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative.
      • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday October 12, @04:16PM (3 children)

        by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday October 12, @04:16PM (#581195)

        The tone of the show is really jarring. First two episodes were fluffy and lighthearted, 3 and 4 take a hard left turn into serious issues, then 5 is back to less serious.

        That said, I'll continue watching it for now.

        --
        "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 Thursday October 12, @04:48PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12, @04:48PM (#581213)

          Other series in Star Trek also had jarring shifts too. For example, the end of season 3 was a Troi's mother visits, then they save a non-corporeal life form, then they barely survive the Borg. Or season 4, where we go from Barclay becomes a super-genius, to dancing around in tights, to Picard charged with treason, to an alien not wanting to commit ritual suicide, to Crusher has a boyfriend. And those are the two examples that immediately come to mind.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12, @05:31PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12, @05:31PM (#581231)

          But they basically played off The Union as a bunch of expansionistic assholes pushing their ideology onto everyone they meet.

          Taken from that stance, they are NOT the federation. However the episode with the floating ship where the 'Taken' guy cameo'd as the former captain (who was the 'god' in their local religion) actually did set out that they tried to minimize interference with more primitive cultures, but since they were on a spaceship it was assumed they already knew the basics. Which it turned out, they didn't, although some heretics believed it so.

          • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday October 12, @06:30PM

            by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday October 12, @06:30PM (#581268)

            But they basically played off The Union as a bunch of expansionistic assholes pushing their ideology onto everyone they meet.

            Whoa, whoa, whoa. Whoa.

            expansionistic

            The heck? How could you possibly get that impression? They're not conquering or invading anybody as far as we know. Other than fighting the Krill (or whatever), which we don't really know anything about.

            pushing their ideology

            Well, one or two specific people on a single ship, anyway. As a general rule, have we seen any indication of that as a Union tendency?

            onto everyone they meet

            It's the third episode, god damn! It's happened one 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 Thursday October 12, @06:08PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12, @06:08PM (#581254)

        Why would they have a concept of the Prime Directive? You know that is part of that ST universe and not a real thing, right?

        • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Thursday October 12, @08:33PM

          by meustrus (4961) <meustrusNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday October 12, @08:33PM (#581331)

          They don't need to have come to the exact same conclusion as in Trek. But they act as though the very idea had never come up. This is a spacefaring people building an interspecies confederation of some sort, and so far the universe seems to be full of an even larger variety of tech levels than Trek. At some point, someone must have fucked with a primitive species in a galactic-scandal kind of way. I would expect things to have shaken out, either resulting in a Prime Directive philosophy or a We Know Best philosophy.

          --
          If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative.
      • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday October 13, @07:37AM

        by isostatic (365) on Friday October 13, @07:37AM (#581618) Journal

        But is The Orville really any better?

        I wouldn't know. Discovery is available to over 5 billion people around the world from about 2AM GMT on Monday morning.

        Orville is available to less than 1/10th of that number.

        If they can't be bothered to broadcast it, I can't be bothered to watch it.

    • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Thursday October 12, @10:26PM

      by RamiK (1813) on Thursday October 12, @10:26PM (#581391)

      So far, it's:

      Original Star-Trek: Socialist. Lead by explorers and scientists chain-of-command. Explores the universe while sometimes fights against the military-industrial complex (Romulans and Klingons) but pursuing peaceful solutions.

      New Star-Trek: Partially post-scarcity meritocracy (theft is still a motivator for crime as discussed in the prisoners transport so something is rotten somewhere). Lead by military officers conducting secret weapons research. Patrols federation borders while fighting against space Jihadists who hate our freedom.

      And that Elon Musk name drop along with the Wright-brothers suggests certain continuity changes and values that depict a very different future:

      Original Star-Trek: The scientific discovery of the warp drive was by an oddball researcher building a rocket in his backyard. And the proceeding rescue of humanity by the logical and scientific Vulcans from its post-apocalyptic wastes following the resource depletion caused by current capitalism and militarism and the genetically engineered caste-system that collapsed following the deposing of Khan. A Khan, btw, that while a dictator, was leading a quarter of humanity in relative peace and prosperity until he was back-stabbed and forced to flee.

      New Star-Trek: The continues operations and success of the Mars colonization backed by private enterprise and big government. Despot and terrorist Khan that was and is trying to genocide the rest of humanity like some cartoon villain.

      But hey, Discovery does have better production values and acting. Moreover, the news show seems to address what I always criticized the original for: The white-washing of the federation's conflicting interests in research, exploration, expansionism and militarism as well as not doing enough to cover the personal conflicts that would arise when placing soldiers and scientists under the same hierarchical command-structure with such a complicated mission statement.

      Still, the new show is a far-cry from its subversive original that depicted a futuristic socialist utopia at the height of the cold war. While there's still time to go 180 and plot around how the ideal of discovery is in conflict with the increasingly militaristic federation as the Klingon war rages on, it's far more likely we're looking at an Orwellian rewrite in favor of the present political agendas.

      Overall, I'll keep watching it but, like the new Battlestar Galactica, I'm expecting something between light entertainment and industrial SWJ propaganda rather than what Star Trek used to be.

      --
      compiling...
    • (Score: 2) by jasassin on Saturday October 14, @08:40AM

      by jasassin (3566) <jasassin@gmail.com> on Saturday October 14, @08:40AM (#582215) Journal

      I'll be watching The Orville instead.

      I've watched all of The Orville so far. It's excellent. Some great laughs, and excellent (albeit arguably ripped off) plots.

      If the new Star Trek isn't what you're into (let alone you have to subscribe to watch it) then I highly recommend The Orville.

      --
      jasassin@gmail.com Key fingerprint = 0644 173D 8EED AB73 C2A6 B363 8A70 579B B6A7 02CA
  • (Score: 3, Funny) by c0lo on Thursday October 12, @09:41AM (1 child)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 12, @09:41AM (#581052)

    So this is a sure sign of the apocalypse. Windows will still be around in 2256 according to Star Trek.

    The good news is that, 200 years into the future, command line and - by extension - the keyboard will continue to exists, in spite of:
    - Wii controllers
    - MacBook Wheel [theonion.com]
    - hololens
    - Siri, Alexa or Ok (yes, the "Ok, google" one)
    - touch screens
    - kinect and other, minority reported or not, hand-waving/monkey jumping gesture-recognitional interfaces
    - auto-correct, EEG and other mind reading interfaces

    • (Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Thursday October 12, @03:36PM

      by SomeGuy (5632) on Thursday October 12, @03:36PM (#581170)

      Just looked at the Windows code photo in TFA....

      They need to make a time-travel trip back to the 1980s AND PICK UP AN ANTI-GLARE SCREEN!

  • (Score: 3, Touché) by Rivenaleem on Thursday October 12, @10:10AM (4 children)

    by Rivenaleem (3400) on Thursday October 12, @10:10AM (#581064)

    Jonathan Frakes let a spoiler slip that explains all of this.

    Mirror Universe
    • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday October 12, @02:47PM (2 children)

      by Grishnakh (2831) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 12, @02:47PM (#581149)

      What does Jonathan Frakes have to do with this show? I just looked through his IMDB profile and there's nothing there linking him to Discovery in any capacity. However, he did appear on one episode of The Orville.

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12, @10:19PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12, @10:19PM (#581387)

        He directed episode 5.

        • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday October 13, @03:34PM

          by Grishnakh (2831) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 13, @03:34PM (#581808)

          Yes, I see now after a Google search. Interesting that IMDB doesn't show that at all, but I guess they wait until something's aired/released before putting such credits on someone's bio.

          This still won't fix this trainwreck of a show. At the very best, they could try to salvage the Klingon mess by claiming these Klingons are from some parallel universe and that's why they're so different, but that's pretty weak (this didn't have just one Klingon ship, there were a bunch). And the real problem with the show is the main character, the lousy writing, and also the fact that there *is* a "main character". Star Trek isn't supposed to have singular main characters, it's about a team. Even TOS didn't have a single main character, it had 3 (Kirk, Spock, Bones), plus 3-4 more almost-main characters (Scotty, Uhura, Sulu, sometimes Chekov). TNG had 7 (Picard, Riker, Data, Worf, Beverly, Troi, Geordi) after they settled down and dumped Wesley. This is a big part of what was so great about ST: it wasn't about one totally fucked-up "flawed" person and their struggles of self-discovery, it was about a team encountering the unknown and dealing with it. Even Firefly used this formula to an extent.

    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday October 12, @04:28PM

      by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday October 12, @04:28PM (#581201)

      Ah, that chestnut for lazy writers to lean on when somebody points out a continuity issue.

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12, @12:53PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12, @12:53PM (#581111)

    Half of the first show over the air was enough to move the show from my play list to my avoid list.

    The value proposition simply is not there.

  • (Score: 5, Funny) by Grishnakh on Thursday October 12, @02:35PM (3 children)

    by Grishnakh (2831) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 12, @02:35PM (#581145)

    I was leaning against this show after reading and seeing reviews about it, with the main problems being that it focused entirely on one very unlikable character instead of the crew as normal ST shows do, and that their take on the Klingons is so awful, but after finding that they speculate a future where starships are running on Windows, forget it. Fuck that shit. This just turns my stomach.

    Honestly, if humans think that Windows is somehow appropriate for running starships, then we don't deserve to leave this planet.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by theluggage on Thursday October 12, @03:41PM

      by theluggage (1797) on Thursday October 12, @03:41PM (#581173)

      Honestly, if humans think that Windows is somehow appropriate for running starships, then we don't deserve to leave this planet.

      Suggest you try watching it before jumping to conclusions.

      Its not like Clippy popped up on the bridge viewscreen - Burnham was given a pile of code to debug which flashed past unintelligibly on the screen unless you were an anal nerd who freeze-framed it and tried to identify it - and if you did, it turns out that it was actually the Stuxnet virus which (given the show is basically about Starfleet black ops) was almost certainly a deliberate "Easter egg".

    • (Score: 2) by el_oscuro on Friday October 13, @12:51AM (1 child)

      by el_oscuro (1711) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 13, @12:51AM (#581466)

      I probably would have watched it if they didn't get all greedy by making you sign up for some new shitty "monthly service" while still serving up a metric fuck ton of commercials.

      --
      SoylentNews is Bacon! [nueskes.com]
      • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday October 13, @04:04AM

        by Grishnakh (2831) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 13, @04:04AM (#581539)

        Yeah, that's really bad too, as are many other things about this show, such as killing off the only likable character in the 2nd episode in an incredibly stupid way. But none of that is as remotely bad as the very idea of a starship running Windows, even if it is somewhat obscure. It's simply unforgivable.

  • (Score: 2) by Weasley on Thursday October 12, @04:13PM (1 child)

    by Weasley (6421) on Thursday October 12, @04:13PM (#581192)

    I caved and subscribed to all access last weekend. Discovery is actually quite good. For those of you blathering about it not being Trek-like....well, do we really need another Trek-like Trek? No. It's been done, several times.

    Yes, the Klingons are different. I'm not entirely turned off by what I've seen though. It almost feels like they invented a totally new alien species, and they do a very good job with it. I like the old Klingons, and these new Klingons don't seem like a badly done reboot.

    Yes, screw CBS for tying this to their new streaming service. But if you can get over that, and you can get past ST's past and enjoy something new, this isn't all that bad.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12, @05:59PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12, @05:59PM (#581248)

      I caved and subscribed to all access last weekend. Discovery is actually quite good. For those of you blathering about it not being Trek-like....well, do we really need another Trek-like Trek? No. It's been done, several times.

      So why have it be Trek at all? If it's not Trek-like, make a new Universe, call it Game of Stars and go crazy. Why go into the past of an existing ST universe and mess it up? (I'm going with lazy, bad writing)

      Yes, the Klingons are different. I'm not entirely turned off by what I've seen though. It almost feels like they invented a totally new alien species,

      Yep, so if they didn't want to use Klingons, why not just make them a new species? (I'm going with lazy, bad writing)

      Yes, screw CBS for tying this to their new streaming service. But if you can get over that,,/quote> and you can get past ST's past and enjoy something new, this isn't all that bad.

      In the short term, I personally will get over their streaming service by just not watching it. The way they are pushing their streaming service in this case is a gamble that I hope they lose. (At least the sleazy network culture is consistent)

      and you can get past ST's past and enjoy something new, this isn't all that bad.

      I'd get past the ST changes far more easily, if they had just not made it ST and actually made it something new! I'd love something new! Instead we get the cynical money grab of using the successful name ST to make something not ST. (Surprisingly, I'm going with lazy, bad writing all covered in that sweet, sweet network sleaze)

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12, @05:45PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12, @05:45PM (#581237)

    I really don't understand how so little apparent effort can go into a show where countless millions were undoubtedly spent on the production values. Even the fundamental plotline is broken.

      - The fundamental motivation for the lead is that her family was killed by Klingons. So she was raised by Romulans. So she presumably doesn't like Klingons very much and I guess being Romulan is supposed to explain some of her Mary Sueness, but that's another issue. Now for the dumb thing. The fundamental plot is that Klingons haven't been seen for more than 100 years. 'I'm 20 something and my [human] parents were killed by Klingons.' 'Klingons haven't been seen for over 100 years.' It's unbelievable nobody in their prescreening process pointed this out. It's painfully sloppy.

      - Our ship. It is a special ship. It has a state of the art drive (powered by a giant tardigrade which another just ughhhh moment) that's the only one in Starfleet. And the captain has an implicit right to do anything, get anyone, to achieve his victory. So they assign a bumbling insecure idiot to the ship? Michael's room mate in particular. OKayyy. And he decides to float around the entire system to go get a mutineer to join his crew? Okayyy. Well I guess her Mary Sueness is already legendary across all of the universe. Which leads to the next thing.

      - A "hero" character. Sisko was not a hero, Picard was not a hero, Janeway was not a hero. Star Trek is not a hero show. Star Trek has a lead character, but that lead is not a hero that magically solves every problem and is an expert in everything. Michael's character is completely boring since it is designed to be a Mary Sue. Her only flaw whatsoever thus far is, "I was willing to risk everything to try to do the right thing. Oh woe is me."

      - A "hero" perspective. Similar to above. Star Trek is again about the crew. The lead plays a generally prominent role, but in many instances is little more than support. STD seems to be just seeing the world through Michael's eyes. Factor in the bland perfection of her character and it's not a very interesting ride.

      - At the same time that Michael is shown to be perfect, everybody else is shown to be bumbling idiots for the most part. The captain decides to keep a live beast, capable of shredding starship metal, in a 'cage' behind little more than a single forcefield because 'we'll make weapons out of it!' Okay, that's not entirely absurd. But now enter the chief security officer, who has shown some degree of aptitude in tactical battles. She decides it'll be a good idea to put some completely untested gas in the creature's forcefield, open it up, and then go in with a plasma rifle - after it's already been shown such weapons are useless against it. She dies and I guess the producers were hoping to go for some sort of game of thrones 'wow, even a bridge officer can die' type effect. Instead, it was just stupid and annoying that they killed off one of the few characters in the show that has shown some sort of somewhat interesting personality.

      - The "Klingons." Hey guys I have a great idea! Let's completely change how they look. And let's stick them in prosthetics so thick that they're incapable of conveying any emotion whatsoever. And to make it even better, let's run everybody's voice through a really annoying synthesizer so they all sound like darth vader on an intercom. It'll be great!

      - The Klingon backstory is completely nonsensical. So they haven't been seen in "more than 100 years." And now the Klingons are going to go fight the federation because they're worried the federation, whom literally not a single Klingon alive has apparently ever had an encounter with, is going to "take away their individuality" even though they're all currently engaged in some massive (and completely undescribed) war between the 12 houses? Oh yes, and advancement among Klingons is determined not by might but by petty backstabbing and bickering? Oh and perhaps the best part of all. Klingons have always had no regard for death. They give a yowl, but then a dead klingon body is just an empty shell - trash. Now they're apparently so sacred as to justify collecting each and every dead klingon from space, putting them in coffins and strapping them on a ship. I have some hopes this could be an intentional bastardization of canon and describe a tradition/belief system that died along with these religious fanatic klingons - but I have my doubts given the "quality" of this show.

      - The klingons are black and white evil. There has been zero effort to even hint at any sort of moral ambiguity (that essentially defines Star Trek) or frame the conflict in any way other than 'We're team Federation. Gonna kick some pure and completely malevolently evil ass. Hell yeah!' Again this is something that could happen later on the series, but once again - I doubt it.

    And I could go on. I really wanted to like the show. I even managed to make myself like Voyager. But this is just awful.

    • (Score: 2) by rleigh on Thursday October 12, @06:57PM (1 child)

      by rleigh (4887) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 12, @06:57PM (#581288) Homepage

      I've watched the four episodes out so far on UK netflix. It's awful, agreed. I'd hoped there might be some small positives which would allow it to redeem itself, but no. I tried to approach it with an open mind, but it's truly dreadful. In addition to all the amateur plot holes you identified, I feel zero affinity to or empathy with any of the cast; they are all thoroughly unlikeable and show precious little common sense or basic humanity, yet at the same time are supposed to be highly trained starship officers. At least Janeway and Neelix were only a bit annoying rather than being outright horrible people! And there's also zero humour; all the other series had a lighthearted side to them but this seems to have no time for it (no, I don't count the stereotypical deliberately annoying roommate as humour, it's just annoying; could they not have any characters with some actual depth to them?).

      • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday October 13, @04:14AM

        by Grishnakh (2831) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 13, @04:14AM (#581546)

        yet at the same time are supposed to be highly trained starship officers. At least Janeway and Neelix were only a bit annoying rather than being outright horrible people!

        Janeway was annoying, and personally I thought she was probably miscast. Neelix however wasn't supposed to be a trained starship officer, but rather some goofy alien they picked up by accident, so that at least made sense.

        But yeah, while I haven't even seen this yet, and don't really want to now, the common thread I'm hearing and reading from people who have, including on long YouTube reviews, is that the characters are simply unlikeable, especially the main one. (And as the parent said, on Star Trek there isn't supposed to be a main character, it's always been about bridge crew (plus doctor), and how they work together.)

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12, @08:27PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12, @08:27PM (#581329)

      Looking at all these comments, I see that "Mary Sue" is now the hip flavor of the month.

      Can't wait to see what it is next month.

  • (Score: 2) by slap on Thursday October 12, @08:29PM (5 children)

    by slap (5764) on Thursday October 12, @08:29PM (#581330)

    I really don't like the "new" Klingons. Their speech is so slow that I could get up, make a cup of coffee, and be drinking it before the Klingon finishes their sentence. They seem to lack the passion that defined the classic Klingon.

    It's one thing to make modifications to the Klingons the way Star Trek did through the various series and movies. They would have been better off coming up with a new alien species for STD. It would have taken more work, but in the long run it would give the show more freedom since the new alien race wouldn't be constrained by any part of the Klingon culture.

    • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday October 13, @04:23AM (3 children)

      by Grishnakh (2831) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 13, @04:23AM (#581549)

      Not only that, at this time the Klingons have to look like they did in ST:TOS (i.e., like middle easterners with goatees). One of the 4th-season episodes of ST:Enterprise "explained" how Klingons got to look like that due to a genetic experiment gone wrong. This doesn't fit into the canon at all. They should have just picked some other species, like Enterprise did for much of their show (first the Sulabon, later delving into the Andorians and Tellarites), the former never being seen before or after in ST, and the latter two only barely being shown on other ST shows, leaving lots of room to explore those races and their interaction with the humans.

      Sadly, it's all too apparent that this show is a complete disaster in many, many ways. Every Star Trek show has started out a little rough around the edges for the first few episodes, or even the whole first season in the case of ST:TNG, but they were just a little clunky, not the completely unwatchable abomination that so many reviewers are describing about Discovery.

      • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday October 13, @07:30AM (2 children)

        by isostatic (365) on Friday October 13, @07:30AM (#581616) Journal

        People had exactly the same complaints when Enterprise launched and Klingons looked like they did in the 24th century.

        • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday October 13, @03:12PM (1 child)

          by Grishnakh (2831) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 13, @03:12PM (#581792)

          That's because the TOS Klingons looked goofy and ridiculous, basically like middle easterners with evil-looking goatees. It was a low-budget product of the 1960s, after all. By TNG and beyond, people were used to the much more believable Klingons shown there (and also in the TOS movies); they didn't want their show to look campy. But they did have an episode in season 4 where they made up an explanation for the human-looking Klingons of TOS. It was honestly the best they could do.

          This show's Klingons are just too much; they're completely different in every way from the Klingons we're used to, both in looks and behavior, and the plot doesn't even make sense (supposedly no humans have seen them for 100 years, nor have they seen any humans in that time, even though they somehow killed Burnham's parents (???), but suddenly they're all worried about their culture being diluted by the Federation and want to start a war over this?).

          • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday October 13, @06:57PM

            by isostatic (365) on Friday October 13, @06:57PM (#581945) Journal

            No, they haven't been around on the galaxy-stage for 100 years, but there have been a few raiding parties - a bit like vikings used to do to Britain. Could even fit in with Picard's statements in "First Contact", which discovery re-first contact (in the same way that we consider Columbus being first contact between Europe and America, despite Leif Erikson

            The point with the Enterprise look of Klingons changing to TOS look is there was no explanation to start with, but one was provided that fitted what we saw (and really it's only Bashir's "Those are Klingons?" line that had to be explained as visual differences aren't really continuity)

    • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday October 13, @07:41AM

      by isostatic (365) on Friday October 13, @07:41AM (#581621) Journal

      Their speech is so slow that I could get up, make a cup of coffee, and be drinking it before the Klingon finishes their sentence

      There's been a shift recently to have people who don't speak English actually not speaking English - in The Americans whole swathes of the show are set in the Soviet Embassy, or in the USSR, and everyone speaks Russian, with subtitles.

      I think it's a shame, especially on such a visually intensive genre like scifi.

  • (Score: 3, Funny) by Gaaark on Friday October 13, @12:20AM (4 children)

    by Gaaark (41) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 13, @12:20AM (#581453) Homepage Journal

    I haven't watched Discovery, but it sounds like it is canon like LOST is canon with Gilligan's Island because... Island.

    How does it compare with Firefly for character development, fun and keeping you watching?
    Shows should be produced by people who have watched and understand Firefly.

    Wakari masu ka?
    (I know... That's not Chinese....)

    --
    --- That's not flying: that's... falling... with more luck than I have. ---
    • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday October 13, @07:28AM (3 children)

      by isostatic (365) on Friday October 13, @07:28AM (#581615) Journal

      I haven't watched Discovery, but it sounds like it is canon like LOST is canon with Gilligan's Island because... Island.

      Actually Discovery refers a lot to the canon. Some visuals have changed, the biggest complaint seems to be about a one-off line from TOS that TOS itself contradicted on multiple locations.

      Shows should be produced by people who have watched and understand Firefly.

      They'd be cancelled after 13 movies then finally return for a disapointing movie.

      • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday October 13, @03:15PM (2 children)

        by Grishnakh (2831) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 13, @03:15PM (#581794)

        They'd be cancelled after 13 movies then finally return for a disapointing movie.

        Wrong. That only happens when you make the mistake of having your show on FOX.

        CBS is doing a lot of things really wrong here, but let's not equate them with the idiots at FOX. It takes a special kind of stupid to show a sci-fi series completely out-of-order, and then when it's extremely popular despite that ridiculous blunder, cancel it mid-series.

        • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday October 13, @03:26PM (1 child)

          by isostatic (365) on Friday October 13, @03:26PM (#581803) Journal

          I used to have sympathy for Joss Weedon over firefly. Then he did Dollhouse with Fox too - I never watched that due to how firefly was treated.

          • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday October 13, @03:36PM

            by Grishnakh (2831) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 13, @03:36PM (#581809)

            Yeah, you gotta wonder what he was thinking there. Didn't he ever hear the saying, "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me"? (Or the updated version, "...won't get fooled again"...)

            Maybe he was desperate and no one else was willing to pick up his new show.

  • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday October 13, @04:35AM

    by Grishnakh (2831) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 13, @04:35AM (#581558)

    Is it Game of Thrones in Space?

    Definitely not.

    Game of Thrones was an almost instant smash hit. People were hooked as soon as they saw the first few episodes. I don't think I ever heard of anyone complaining that the first few episodes of GoT were awful; it got better later to be sure, but even right at the outset it was a good show to watch and quickly addictive. That's pretty remarkable too considering the show had a lot of very morally ambiguous characters and characters that weren't all that likable (though some of them became more likable as we got to know them later, and they developed a lot too).

    I haven't seen any commentary like this about ST:D, instead almost exactly the opposite. Most people seem disgusted by the first 3-4 episodes, and the few people sticking up for it are giving us "highly enthusiastic" comments like "it's not that bad", and pretty much no commentary of substance explaining how this show could possibly have quality writing despite so many people despising it.

    I do hope this isn't a repeat of ST:Enterprise though. I heard a lot of complaining about that one too when it came out and didn't watch it until years later, and found I actually enjoyed it a fair bit, except for that stupid Xindi arc in the 3rd season. It wasn't perfection by any means, and had some problems, but characters were likable, and it still had the spirit of ST.

(1)