tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4400152815785368447.post6541959665066133092..comments2024-03-15T07:28:47.064-05:00Comments on Treknobabble: Discovery, Season 1: The Vulcan HelloUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4400152815785368447.post-64221345481213021802017-10-26T12:02:11.400-05:002017-10-26T12:02:11.400-05:00Poppy,
I agree with all of your criticisms. I thi...Poppy,<br /><br />I agree with all of your criticisms. I think you may be letting them (and they are valid) obscure elements of the story that were most definitely not present in the Abrams crapfests. There are some ethical questions, there are interesting character dynamics.<br /><br />Overall, this may end up trending downward (it seems to have as I write this after 6 episodes) because, while it has some Trek elements, it doesn't cook them for long enough, and lets mindless action take over.<br /><br />But it's better than the Abrams stuff, and I'll stick by that.matthewweflenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07540521459703556959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4400152815785368447.post-89074273107070903172017-10-22T16:33:46.689-05:002017-10-22T16:33:46.689-05:00I dont know how you guys give this rebooted garbag...I dont know how you guys give this rebooted garbage an 8 when actual, really good Trek episodes from DS9 to VOY and TNG have gotten 6s. You should be deducting 2 points automatically right upfront, just because it is a reboot anda prequel to boot. <br /><br />I'm sorry but this is NOT Star Trek. They are just using the name but it is not Trek and I do not care for it. I did not have a good feeling about this when I saw the promos and then watching this later on was just painful. After the crap Abrams, together with Kurtzman - who is also their show runner here - output, I have sworn off any reboots where either one of them is involved. I know Menosky and Fuller are involved too, but those people by themselves never made Trek what it was anyway and here they are just drowned out by a massive sleuth of producers. And it shows. <br /><br />For one - and just conceptually speaking - I find it annoying that this is, once again, a freaking prequel where everything we know is a forgone conclusion. We know what happens, I am not interested in rehashing the past and the human/Klingon conflict. Or, for that matter, looking at Klingons that look like Lucifer and just plain evil and aliens that belong more in Star WARS than Trek. <br /><br />Secondly, why go back? Why not a show that takes place after the events of Voyager and DS9? Star Trek is about the future and looking ahead and boldly going where no one has gone before. Enough with the prequels already. Especially dull ones like this. <br /><br />All these reboots since Enterprise last aired have done is look back. Again and again. I dont care. A lot of the technologies will not even be there so half of what makes Trek will be missing.I did love Enterprise because it was set so far back in the past exploring the beginnings of the FEDERATION and human space flight that it was intriguing. The sets and production felt authentic. Like I can see, realistically speaking, how in the next 100 years or so humans could build ships that look like the NX class from Enterprise. I can see them wearing the grey and blue uniforms etc. I can envision the interior of such a ship looking as it did on ENT. It is interesting to explore how they met all the other species with whom they later formed an alliance and whom we all met in all the other Trek shows. <br /><br />But this is just uninteresting to me. We know that humans and Klingons eventually make peace, we know who brokers the deal, we know Klingons DONT LOOK LIKE MONSTERS covered in tar, we know they become allies and save the Alpha Quadrant form the Dominion. So who gives a shit about their petty dispute some 150 year prior to all that? <br /><br />Oh and the bridge of the Enterprise still looks like a freaking Bloomingdales make up counter and it makes zero sense that it would be so high end and high tech a DECADE before the events of TOS. They look like ships and interiors you'd expect to see in the 25th century and beyond. <br /><br />The days of Star Trek as we know it (TNG, DS9, VOY and also ENT) are forever gone and scrambled versions of the Abrams/Lin reboots seem to be all we are getting. <br /><br />I want to see real, competent Trek people in charge and I want to see Trek look forward and into the future, not back. <br /><br />I am going to keep watching this garbage because I feel as a Trek fan I should take a crack at it at least once but boy, this stinks and you guys are surprisingly generous in your rating and reviews of these. Not sure why this gets such accolades when the Abrams' reboots did not. poppyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09064123327462038174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4400152815785368447.post-39279010858142307462017-10-03T12:21:24.413-05:002017-10-03T12:21:24.413-05:00"I also read somewhere that the writers are s..."I also read somewhere that the writers are sticking with the story beats that Fuller mapped out for multiple(!) seasons."<br /><br />I can't tell you how happy those words make me. Even if they're ultimately not true, I will hold them close to my heart.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05582237401541322274noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4400152815785368447.post-74415305124135996942017-09-28T18:58:05.239-05:002017-09-28T18:58:05.239-05:00Agreed. Tonal balance is good way of putting it. A...Agreed. Tonal balance is good way of putting it. Also, as I posted right before the podcast dropped, I want to clarify that my complaint about reactions doesn't apply to legitimate concern (as Kevin and John expressed) that Discovery *could possibly* become tonal imbalanced and grim-dark. I share those concerns, but am optimistic. It struck me as being somewhat lighter than a series like "The Expanse," which I was getting some vibes of. <br />I also read somewhere that the writers are sticking with the story beats that Fuller mapped out for multiple(!) seasons. <br /><br />Gordon Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15259964962383025146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4400152815785368447.post-88941466219133682102017-09-27T22:31:59.555-05:002017-09-27T22:31:59.555-05:00I agree, it seems like they're going for a ton...I agree, it seems like they're going for a tonal balance, neither terribly dark nor light. At no point did I feel this story had veered too dark. Was there dark stuff happening? Sure. But the human responses were those of recognizably Federation citizens, not residents of the nuTrek Dum-Dum-Verse or the Zach Snyder DC Murder-verse.matthewweflenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07540521459703556959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4400152815785368447.post-6643453826692451852017-09-27T20:31:54.242-05:002017-09-27T20:31:54.242-05:00Up until about a week ago, I was pretty convinced ...Up until about a week ago, I was pretty convinced I was going to hate this, but then I started reading more about the vision the creative team had (plus got the sense that they were actually pretty thoughtful, actual Trek fans), which gave me a glimmer of hope. Once it aired, I could tell immediately it was much better than the nuTrek films. This is what those *should* have been. <br /><br />I'm a bit baffled by how polarized the response has been though. Some people seem convinced that this will be a dystopian show that will: (1) be about nothing but brainless war, and (2) wallow in humorless darkness. I'm really wondering if I saw the same show. The early Shenzhou scenes indicate that (b) is not going to be the case. It also seems clear they're setting up an arc of the hot war with the Klingons cooling down, probably mirroring Burnham's personal journey coming to terms with her own past trauma, while she, and the viewers, learn (dare I say, discover) more about Klingon culture. <br />Gordon Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15259964962383025146noreply@blogger.com