# Star Trek: One More Time



## Billy_Kinetta

Will you watch?

I'll probably watch the opener out of curiosity but won't pay money to CBS to see the series.  The premise is not fresh beyond the lady Captain and XO.

'Star Trek: Discovery' to Tackle Trump-Era Political Divide


----------



## impuretrash

They hired that personality-less chick who can't act from the walking dead to play the captain. It's gonna be awful.


----------



## Hugo Furst

impuretrash said:


> They hired that personality-less chick who can't act from the walking dead to play the captain. It's gonna be awful.


???

Michelle Yeoh  ...
Captain Georgiou


----------



## Hugo Furst

Despite the fact Michelle Yeoh is in it, I doubt I watch much of it, if any.

Never finished any but the original series.


----------



## impuretrash

WillHaftawaite said:


> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> They hired that personality-less chick who can't act from the walking dead to play the captain. It's gonna be awful.
> 
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> Michelle Yeoh  ...
> Captain Georgiou
Click to expand...


Ohhh...correction. She's playing 1st officer.
Sonequa Martin-Green on "Star Trek: Discovery" and its diverse cast - Videos - CBS News


----------



## aaronleland

Star Trek is for nerds.



_*uses comic book avatars_


----------



## miketx

No, Star Trek is nothing but libtard fantasy bullshit except the original series. In it, if the captain wasn't killing them, he was "kirking" them.


----------



## impuretrash

miketx said:


> No, Star Trek is nothing but libtard fantasy bullshit except the original series. In it, if the captain wasn't killing them, he was "kirking" them.



There was an occasional good episode of TNG but yeah, it's philosophy is commie as all fuck.


----------



## Montrovant

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Will you watch?
> 
> I'll probably watch the opener out of curiosity but won't pay money to CBS to see the series.  The premise is not fresh beyond the lady Captain and XO.
> 
> 'Star Trek: Discovery' to Tackle Trump-Era Political Divide



I'm with you on this.  I'll check out the first episode, but I don't know if I'll go any further than that.

I haven't watched any Star Trek shows since TNG.  I tried DS9, but didn't like the first episode, and haven't really bothered since.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Republicans will be Klingons.

This show will be so politicized that it will belong on Venezuelan TV.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

miketx said:


> No, Star Trek is nothing but libtard fantasy bullshit except the original series. In it, if the captain wasn't killing them, he was "kirking" them.



Ahh, Kirk.  The only starship captain I'd serve under.  He knew how to have a good time.

The rest were pretty anal about things.


----------



## WillMunny

Nope, from everything I've heard about ST: Discovery it will be every bit as clumsy, SJW-harrassing the viewer (other Star Trek let their diversity function as a casual, everyday thing) embarrassing and horribly dumbed down as Jar Jar Abrams horrid mockery of Star Trek movies.  I can't tell you how the hyperactive, jackhammer-in-the-brain, stupid 2009 cine-feces ended because I walked out during the last half hour.  I hated it so bad that I figured whatever I paid to get in, it was worth MORE to get out.  Not only is it the worst Star Trek I've ever seen, not only is it the worst movie I've ever seen, but I've NEVER seen a megabudget movie more incompetent on a technical level.  The lens flares, obnoxious set design lighting & cinematography, etc., etc.  J.J. Abrams Trek has zero redeeming qualities of any kind.  I haven't watched any newer Trek since that 2009 utter miscarriage of sci-fi.

My point being, everything points to Discovery as being in the same DELIBERATELY dumbed-down, obnoxious vein.  And has so many talentless idiots involved, NOTHING good can come from it.


----------



## WillMunny

miketx said:


> No, Star Trek is nothing but libtard fantasy bullshit except the original series. In it, if the captain wasn't killing them, he was "kirking" them.



I do agree that the original series was the least "libtarded" and most intellectually reasonable, least politically partisan, no question of that.  But even as libtarded as some of the newer series got, they still had some thoughtful moments and ideas that had nothing to do with SJW bullshit; it's a matter of finding just the right episodes. I'm a sucker for space stories, I've always like being told a big space adventure story even if I disagree with the overall theme of the story.


----------



## WillMunny

In the original series, Spock did have the best Zen wisdom of all time.  In the ep. when his arranged Vulcan wife cuckolded him, Spock quietly told his Vulcan rival, "Ston, she is yours.  But after a time you may find that having is not nearly so desirable sensation as wanting.  It is illogical, I know, but so often true."  Have truer real-life words every been spoken??


----------



## Harry Dresden

piss on this new trek series......watch the Orville.....


----------



## Montrovant

WillMunny said:


> Nope, from everything I've heard about ST: Discovery it will be every bit as clumsy, SJW-harrassing the viewer (other Star Trek let their diversity function as a casual, everyday thing) embarrassing and horribly dumbed down as Jar Jar Abrams horrid mockery of Star Trek movies.  I can't tell you how the hyperactive, jackhammer-in-the-brain, stupid 2009 cine-feces ended because I walked out during the last half hour.  I hated it so bad that I figured whatever I paid to get in, it was worth MORE to get out.  Not only is it the worst Star Trek I've ever seen, not only is it the worst movie I've ever seen, but I've NEVER seen a megabudget movie more incompetent on a technical level.  The lens flares, obnoxious set design lighting & cinematography, etc., etc.  J.J. Abrams Trek has zero redeeming qualities of any kind.  I haven't watched any newer Trek since that 2009 utter miscarriage of sci-fi.
> 
> My point being, everything points to Discovery as being in the same DELIBERATELY dumbed-down, obnoxious vein.  And has so many talentless idiots involved, NOTHING good can come from it.



If the 2009 Star Trek is the worst movie you have ever seen, you must have seen very few movies.


----------



## WillMunny

Montrovant said:


> WillMunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, from everything I've heard about ST: Discovery it will be every bit as clumsy, SJW-harrassing the viewer (other Star Trek let their diversity function as a casual, everyday thing) embarrassing and horribly dumbed down as Jar Jar Abrams horrid mockery of Star Trek movies.  I can't tell you how the hyperactive, jackhammer-in-the-brain, stupid 2009 cine-feces ended because I walked out during the last half hour.  I hated it so bad that I figured whatever I paid to get in, it was worth MORE to get out.  Not only is it the worst Star Trek I've ever seen, not only is it the worst movie I've ever seen, but I've NEVER seen a megabudget movie more incompetent on a technical level.  The lens flares, obnoxious set design lighting & cinematography, etc., etc.  J.J. Abrams Trek has zero redeeming qualities of any kind.  I haven't watched any newer Trek since that 2009 utter miscarriage of sci-fi.
> 
> My point being, everything points to Discovery as being in the same DELIBERATELY dumbed-down, obnoxious vein.  And has so many talentless idiots involved, NOTHING good can come from it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2009 Star Trek is the worst movie you have ever seen, you must have seen very few movies.
Click to expand...


On the contrary, I've seen a gazillion movies, but I've never seen a movie that DELIBERATELY lobotomized and utterly dumbed down its original material like Jar Jar Abrams Trek.  Hell, that arrogant little four-eyed idiot fuck himself said, "I never watched or liked Star Trek, I just wanted to make it more like Star Wars."  That creature is a cancer on the very idea of Star Trek's cognizance.


----------



## Montrovant

WillMunny said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillMunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, from everything I've heard about ST: Discovery it will be every bit as clumsy, SJW-harrassing the viewer (other Star Trek let their diversity function as a casual, everyday thing) embarrassing and horribly dumbed down as Jar Jar Abrams horrid mockery of Star Trek movies.  I can't tell you how the hyperactive, jackhammer-in-the-brain, stupid 2009 cine-feces ended because I walked out during the last half hour.  I hated it so bad that I figured whatever I paid to get in, it was worth MORE to get out.  Not only is it the worst Star Trek I've ever seen, not only is it the worst movie I've ever seen, but I've NEVER seen a megabudget movie more incompetent on a technical level.  The lens flares, obnoxious set design lighting & cinematography, etc., etc.  J.J. Abrams Trek has zero redeeming qualities of any kind.  I haven't watched any newer Trek since that 2009 utter miscarriage of sci-fi.
> 
> My point being, everything points to Discovery as being in the same DELIBERATELY dumbed-down, obnoxious vein.  And has so many talentless idiots involved, NOTHING good can come from it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2009 Star Trek is the worst movie you have ever seen, you must have seen very few movies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary, I've seen a gazillion movies, but I've never seen a movie that DELIBERATELY lobotomized and utterly dumbed down its original material like Jar Jar Abrams Trek.  Hell, that arrogant little four-eyed idiot fuck himself said, "I never watched or liked Star Trek, I just wanted to make it more like Star Wars."  That creature is a cancer on the very idea of Star Trek's cognizance.
Click to expand...


That doesn't make the movie itself worse than any of a million horrible movies that have been made, with worse production values, acting, writing, you name it.  Also, you mention Jar Jar.....I'd say that the Star Wars prequels ruin the original material far more than the Star Trek reboot did.  And to be honest, while I am a Star Trek fan, some of the original movies just aren't all that good.


----------



## WillMunny

Montrovant said:


> WillMunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillMunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, from everything I've heard about ST: Discovery it will be every bit as clumsy, SJW-harrassing the viewer (other Star Trek let their diversity function as a casual, everyday thing) embarrassing and horribly dumbed down as Jar Jar Abrams horrid mockery of Star Trek movies.  I can't tell you how the hyperactive, jackhammer-in-the-brain, stupid 2009 cine-feces ended because I walked out during the last half hour.  I hated it so bad that I figured whatever I paid to get in, it was worth MORE to get out.  Not only is it the worst Star Trek I've ever seen, not only is it the worst movie I've ever seen, but I've NEVER seen a megabudget movie more incompetent on a technical level.  The lens flares, obnoxious set design lighting & cinematography, etc., etc.  J.J. Abrams Trek has zero redeeming qualities of any kind.  I haven't watched any newer Trek since that 2009 utter miscarriage of sci-fi.
> 
> My point being, everything points to Discovery as being in the same DELIBERATELY dumbed-down, obnoxious vein.  And has so many talentless idiots involved, NOTHING good can come from it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2009 Star Trek is the worst movie you have ever seen, you must have seen very few movies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary, I've seen a gazillion movies, but I've never seen a movie that DELIBERATELY lobotomized and utterly dumbed down its original material like Jar Jar Abrams Trek.  Hell, that arrogant little four-eyed idiot fuck himself said, "I never watched or liked Star Trek, I just wanted to make it more like Star Wars."  That creature is a cancer on the very idea of Star Trek's cognizance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't make the movie itself worse than any of a million horrible movies that have been made, with worse production values, acting, writing, you name it.  Also, you mention Jar Jar.....I'd say that the Star Wars prequels ruin the original material far more than the Star Trek reboot did.  And to be honest, while I am a Star Trek fan, some of the original movies just aren't all that good.
Click to expand...


I AGREE that the Star Wars prequels were the worst-acted, worst-written, worst-directed disgrace to the Star Wars franchise I've ever seen!  But does that disprove of how godawful J.J. Abrams Trek is?  No.


----------



## Montrovant

WillMunny said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillMunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillMunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, from everything I've heard about ST: Discovery it will be every bit as clumsy, SJW-harrassing the viewer (other Star Trek let their diversity function as a casual, everyday thing) embarrassing and horribly dumbed down as Jar Jar Abrams horrid mockery of Star Trek movies.  I can't tell you how the hyperactive, jackhammer-in-the-brain, stupid 2009 cine-feces ended because I walked out during the last half hour.  I hated it so bad that I figured whatever I paid to get in, it was worth MORE to get out.  Not only is it the worst Star Trek I've ever seen, not only is it the worst movie I've ever seen, but I've NEVER seen a megabudget movie more incompetent on a technical level.  The lens flares, obnoxious set design lighting & cinematography, etc., etc.  J.J. Abrams Trek has zero redeeming qualities of any kind.  I haven't watched any newer Trek since that 2009 utter miscarriage of sci-fi.
> 
> My point being, everything points to Discovery as being in the same DELIBERATELY dumbed-down, obnoxious vein.  And has so many talentless idiots involved, NOTHING good can come from it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2009 Star Trek is the worst movie you have ever seen, you must have seen very few movies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary, I've seen a gazillion movies, but I've never seen a movie that DELIBERATELY lobotomized and utterly dumbed down its original material like Jar Jar Abrams Trek.  Hell, that arrogant little four-eyed idiot fuck himself said, "I never watched or liked Star Trek, I just wanted to make it more like Star Wars."  That creature is a cancer on the very idea of Star Trek's cognizance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't make the movie itself worse than any of a million horrible movies that have been made, with worse production values, acting, writing, you name it.  Also, you mention Jar Jar.....I'd say that the Star Wars prequels ruin the original material far more than the Star Trek reboot did.  And to be honest, while I am a Star Trek fan, some of the original movies just aren't all that good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I AGREE that the Star Wars prequels were the worst-acted, worst-written, worst-directed disgrace to the Star Wars franchise I've ever seen!  But does that disprove of how godawful J.J. Abrams Trek is?  No.
Click to expand...


I'm just saying that calling the Abrams Trek the worst movie you've ever seen seems pretty unlikely.  I've seen plenty of movies worse than that.  Most disappointing seems like it might be a more accurate way to put it.


----------



## Zander

I'll watch it. 

I've enjoyed almost all of the Star Trek movies and TV Series'. 

Deep Space Nine was criminally underrated. 

I hope this one is good!


----------



## Darkwind

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Will you watch?
> 
> I'll probably watch the opener out of curiosity but won't pay money to CBS to see the series.  The premise is not fresh beyond the lady Captain and XO.
> 
> 'Star Trek: Discovery' to Tackle Trump-Era Political Divide


From what I've read about it, no.  I'll watch the series opener at most.  From what I've seen of the design of the Enterprise, it looks to be pretty pathetic.  A lot of people were upset by that design.  lol  It looks like shit.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Montrovant said:


> WillMunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, from everything I've heard about ST: Discovery it will be every bit as clumsy, SJW-harrassing the viewer (other Star Trek let their diversity function as a casual, everyday thing) embarrassing and horribly dumbed down as Jar Jar Abrams horrid mockery of Star Trek movies.  I can't tell you how the hyperactive, jackhammer-in-the-brain, stupid 2009 cine-feces ended because I walked out during the last half hour.  I hated it so bad that I figured whatever I paid to get in, it was worth MORE to get out.  Not only is it the worst Star Trek I've ever seen, not only is it the worst movie I've ever seen, but I've NEVER seen a megabudget movie more incompetent on a technical level.  The lens flares, obnoxious set design lighting & cinematography, etc., etc.  J.J. Abrams Trek has zero redeeming qualities of any kind.  I haven't watched any newer Trek since that 2009 utter miscarriage of sci-fi.
> 
> My point being, everything points to Discovery as being in the same DELIBERATELY dumbed-down, obnoxious vein.  And has so many talentless idiots involved, NOTHING good can come from it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2009 Star Trek is the worst movie you have ever seen, you must have seen very few movies.
Click to expand...


Try Lou Ferrigno's *Hercules*.


----------



## WillMunny

Yay, the BBCrap is putting on the classic Gorn episode.  Which has the oddly cheesy yet wildly suspenseful fight between Kirk and that reptilian, hissing Gorn!  Fun times!


----------



## WillMunny

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillMunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, from everything I've heard about ST: Discovery it will be every bit as clumsy, SJW-harrassing the viewer (other Star Trek let their diversity function as a casual, everyday thing) embarrassing and horribly dumbed down as Jar Jar Abrams horrid mockery of Star Trek movies.  I can't tell you how the hyperactive, jackhammer-in-the-brain, stupid 2009 cine-feces ended because I walked out during the last half hour.  I hated it so bad that I figured whatever I paid to get in, it was worth MORE to get out.  Not only is it the worst Star Trek I've ever seen, not only is it the worst movie I've ever seen, but I've NEVER seen a megabudget movie more incompetent on a technical level.  The lens flares, obnoxious set design lighting & cinematography, etc., etc.  J.J. Abrams Trek has zero redeeming qualities of any kind.  I haven't watched any newer Trek since that 2009 utter miscarriage of sci-fi.
> 
> My point being, everything points to Discovery as being in the same DELIBERATELY dumbed-down, obnoxious vein.  And has so many talentless idiots involved, NOTHING good can come from it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2009 Star Trek is the worst movie you have ever seen, you must have seen very few movies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try Lou Ferrigno's *Hercules*.
Click to expand...


As a matter of fact I have!  That 1983 Hercules movie happens to be one of my favorite guilty-pleasure bad movies because it was impossible to take seriously.  It was a low-budget movie that was literally so bad it was good.  It was hilarious the way Ferrigno always hurled large objects into space whenever he was upset.  And for some bizarre reason, it made pinball-machine sound effects every time he did!  I found that ridiculous Hercules movie funnier than 99% of the comedies out there.

The Ferrigno Hercules movie reminded me of a bunch of kids dressing up and playing Greek mythology adventures.  Maybe that's why I found the movie's awfulness at cute as I did.


----------



## toobfreak

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Will you watch?
> 
> I'll probably watch the opener out of curiosity but won't pay money to CBS to see the series.  The premise is not fresh beyond the lady Captain and XO.
> 
> 'Star Trek: Discovery' to Tackle Trump-Era Political Divide




Well, already a couple strikes against:


CBS actually TURNED DOWN Star Trek in the 1960s for Lost In Space;  ironic that now they want to profit from it.
The new show carries nothing of the original vision of Gene Roddenberry I can see.
The Original Series was the best because in the first season, Roddenberry had his hands full doing the work of six people these days;  his main focus was on SEX.  Halfway through the first season and thereafter, Gene Coon took over and gave Star Trek the humor and camaraderie everyone loves.  But in The Next Generation, Roddenberry tried his Libtard vision and it failed, so after the first season there was much less of it.
Right away I can see the flaw of Star Trek Discovery:  rather than design the cast around good stories, they are designing the stories around the cast------  and they are making cast choices not based on story-potential but on promoting political views:  the first officer isn't black because it makes for _better stories_, she is black just to be BLACK.  And the Captain (?) is gay not because it makes for better stories, but just so he is GAY.  So how do we even know he is gay?  Will they be rubbing it in my face as he french kisses another man?  Turn that shit off.  I don't watch TV to have someone's political views shoved down my throat, as it were.
The first episode of Discovery is on Sunday night the 24th at about 8:30PM EDT depending on football.  I will watch it, but will NOT subscribe to CBS Direct so I can watch ONE TV show on my computer monitor!  I watch TV on my 60 inch screen.
Lastly, *The Orville* beat CBS to the punchline and it was GREAT.  Produced by veteran Star Trek guy Brannon Braga.  On network TV and with the much-needed twist of light humor much in the style of Family Guy, the CGI is top notch, set design excellent, characters are all great, and writing was super!  It can only get better.  I look forward to the SECOND episode.


----------



## toobfreak

Oh and BTW, the black lady says she was the first black leading character in Star Trek?  I'll give you that Uhura wasn't a LEADING character, but what the hell was Avery Brooks, LaVar Burton, Michael Dorn, and Tim Russ?  Steamed cabbage?


----------



## Montrovant

toobfreak said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will you watch?
> 
> I'll probably watch the opener out of curiosity but won't pay money to CBS to see the series.  The premise is not fresh beyond the lady Captain and XO.
> 
> 'Star Trek: Discovery' to Tackle Trump-Era Political Divide
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, already a couple strikes against:
> 
> 
> CBS actually TURNED DOWN Star Trek in the 1960s for Lost In Space;  ironic that now they want to profit from it.
> The new show carries nothing of the original vision of Gene Roddenberry I can see.
> The Original Series was the best because in the first season, Roddenberry had his hands full doing the work of six people these days;  his main focus was on SEX.  Halfway through the first season and thereafter, Gene Coon took over and gave Star Trek the humor and camaraderie everyone loves.  But in The Next Generation, Roddenberry tried his Libtard vision and it failed, so after the first season there was much less of it.
> Right away I can see the flaw of Star Trek Discovery:  rather than design the cast around good stories, they are designing the stories around the cast------  and they are making cast choices not based on story-potential but on promoting political views:  the first officer isn't black because it makes for _better stories_, she is black just to be BLACK.  And the Captain (?) is gay not because it makes for better stories, but just so he is GAY.  So how do we even know he is gay?  Will they be rubbing it in my face as he french kisses another man?  Turn that shit off.  I don't watch TV to have someone's political views shoved down my throat, as it were.
> The first episode of Discovery is on Sunday night the 24th at about 8:30PM EDT depending on football.  I will watch it, but will NOT subscribe to CBS Direct so I can watch ONE TV show on my computer monitor!  I watch TV on my 60 inch screen.
> Lastly, *The Orville* beat CBS to the punchline and it was GREAT.  Produced by veteran Star Trek guy Brannon Braga.  On network TV and with the much-needed twist of light humor much in the style of Family Guy, the CGI is top notch, set design excellent, characters are all great, and writing was super!  It can only get better.  I look forward to the SECOND episode.
Click to expand...


The race of any character in Star Trek is unlikely to make better or worse stories.  It just doesn't matter in the context of the show.  I don't know how much Martin-Green being black played into her casting, and how much was just an attempt to draw in The Walking Dead fans.

If showing a gay character being romantically intimate is to "have someone's political views shoved down my throat," does that mean having a straight character being romantically intimate with someone also having someone's political views shoved down your throat?  Or is that only the case if the character is gay?  Yes, this may well have been the creators/producers just wanting to have a prominent gay character.

I watched a bit of The Orville and did not like it at all.  It seemed confused about what it wanted to be, and that led to the drama not being compelling, while the humor wasn't funny.  I am a fan of Family Guy, but The Orville was not even vaguely like that show, other than hearing MacFarlane's voice.

I'll give Discovery a shot with the first episode, but I agree that paying for a streaming service to watch one show is pretty silly, unless that show is amazing.


----------



## Montrovant

toobfreak said:


> Oh and BTW, the black lady says she was the first black leading character in Star Trek?  I'll give you that Uhura wasn't a LEADING character, but what the hell was Avery Brooks, LaVar Burton, Michael Dorn, and Tim Russ?  Steamed cabbage?



From what I've read, Martin-Green said she is the first black *female* lead in a Star Trek show.

And of your list, only Avery Brooks was a lead character, so far as I know.  Uhura, Worf, La Forge, and Tuvok were all secondary characters.


----------



## Harry Dresden

i thought the Orville was pretty good.....confused about what it wants to be?....and why would the show be like family guy?.....Stewie and Brian are the best things on that show....otherwise that show has gone past its expiration date....


----------



## Montrovant

Harry Dresden said:


> i thought the Orville was pretty good.....confused about what it wants to be?....and why would the show be like family guy?.....Stewie and Brian are the best things on that show....otherwise that show has gone past its expiration date....



Yes, confused.  The show, at least the first 15 minutes or so, couldn't decide if it was a drama or a comedy, and failed to do a good job at both.  The jokes fell flat, and the characters were not overly interesting or sympathetic.  It's like the writers couldn't decide if they want the show to be Star Trek or Galaxy Quest.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Montrovant said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> i thought the Orville was pretty good.....confused about what it wants to be?....and why would the show be like family guy?.....Stewie and Brian are the best things on that show....otherwise that show has gone past its expiration date....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, confused.  The show, at least the first 15 minutes or so, couldn't decide if it was a drama or a comedy, and failed to do a good job at both.  The jokes fell flat, and the characters were not overly interesting or sympathetic.  It's like the writers couldn't decide if they want the show to be Star Trek or Galaxy Quest.
Click to expand...

like many shows montro you have to give it a few episodes......TNG took the whole 1st season to be what they turned into...


----------



## Montrovant

Harry Dresden said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> i thought the Orville was pretty good.....confused about what it wants to be?....and why would the show be like family guy?.....Stewie and Brian are the best things on that show....otherwise that show has gone past its expiration date....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, confused.  The show, at least the first 15 minutes or so, couldn't decide if it was a drama or a comedy, and failed to do a good job at both.  The jokes fell flat, and the characters were not overly interesting or sympathetic.  It's like the writers couldn't decide if they want the show to be Star Trek or Galaxy Quest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> like many shows montro you have to give it a few episodes......TNG took the whole 1st season to be what they turned into...
Click to expand...


I remember enjoying TNG from the start.  Also, I don't think that show was really confused about what kind of show it was; it may have just taken some time to figure out how it was going to go about it, but it knew what it was from the start.  I didn't see anything in The Orville to make me want to keep watching, and I certainly haven't seen anything from MacFarlane to trust him with a drama.


----------



## Synthaholic

WillHaftawaite said:


> Never finished any but the original series.


Then you're not a Star Trek fan.


----------



## Synthaholic

WillMunny said:


> Nope, from everything I've heard about ST: Discovery it will be every bit as clumsy, *SJW-harrassing the viewer* (other Star Trek let their diversity function as a casual, everyday thing) embarrassing and horribly dumbed down as Jar Jar Abrams horrid mockery of Star Trek movies.


You poor cuck.  Better find your safe space now before they're all gone!


----------



## Hugo Furst

Synthaholic said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never finished any but the original series.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you're not a Star Trek fan.
Click to expand...


special effects, makeup?

sure

storylines?


----------



## Synthaholic

Montrovant said:


> WillMunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, from everything I've heard about ST: Discovery it will be every bit as clumsy, SJW-harrassing the viewer (other Star Trek let their diversity function as a casual, everyday thing) embarrassing and horribly dumbed down as Jar Jar Abrams horrid mockery of Star Trek movies.  I can't tell you how the hyperactive, jackhammer-in-the-brain, stupid 2009 cine-feces ended because I walked out during the last half hour.  I hated it so bad that I figured whatever I paid to get in, it was worth MORE to get out.  Not only is it the worst Star Trek I've ever seen, not only is it the worst movie I've ever seen, but I've NEVER seen a megabudget movie more incompetent on a technical level.  The lens flares, obnoxious set design lighting & cinematography, etc., etc.  J.J. Abrams Trek has zero redeeming qualities of any kind.  I haven't watched any newer Trek since that 2009 utter miscarriage of sci-fi.
> 
> My point being, everything points to Discovery as being in the same DELIBERATELY dumbed-down, obnoxious vein.  And has so many talentless idiots involved, NOTHING good can come from it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2009 Star Trek is the worst movie you have ever seen, you must have seen very few movies.
Click to expand...

The 2009 reboot is a fantastic movie.  Karl Urban is a perfect Dr. McCoy.


----------



## Synthaholic

Zander said:


> Deep Space Nine was criminally underrated.


Yup.  I thought Voyager was very good, action and alien-wise.  The Kayzon, Species 8472, The Borg...  And I don't care what anyone says, Captain Janeway was an awesome character.  Tough as nails and always ready to fight.


----------



## Synthaholic

toobfreak said:


> But in The Next Generation, Roddenberry tried his Libtard vision and it failed


----------



## eddiew37

Synthaholic said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deep Space Nine was criminally underrated.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.  I thought Voyager was very good, action and alien-wise.  The Kayzon, Species 8472, The Borg...  And I don't care what anyone says, Captain Janeway was an awesome character.  Tough as nails and always ready to fight.
Click to expand...

profit before family


----------



## eddiew37

Synthaholic said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deep Space Nine was criminally underrated.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.  I thought Voyager was very good, action and alien-wise.  The Kayzon, Species 8472, The Borg...  And I don't care what anyone says, Captain Janeway was an awesome character.  Tough as nails and always ready to fight.
Click to expand...

The Ferrenghi  now known as the republican party


----------



## Synthaholic

Harry Dresden said:


> i thought the Orville was pretty good.....confused about what it wants to be?....and why would the show be like family guy?.....*Stewie and Brian are the best things on that show*....otherwise that show has gone past its expiration date....


They were the only thing that was ever good on that show, with occasionally Lois.


----------



## toobfreak

Montrovant said:


> The race of any character in Star Trek is unlikely to make better or worse stories.  It just doesn't matter in the context of the show.



Then why make a point of it?  What has CBS told me about the show?  Almost nothing, but I know they have a black first officer and a gay captain.  The point is, why does it matter at all if he's gay?  Sulu was really gay yet no one even knew it until decades after the show was over.  And who is to say if the character Uhura or Scotty or Chekov was gay?  It simply wasn't a point of the story.  The only one we know for sure was hetero was Kirk.  ;^)  So the only possible point to being told he is gay is to:
A).  Either explore gay issues in the story, and that was my original point.  
B). Attract a gay viewership.

Why is it that all of these left wing liberal organizations have this obsession with every minority in the world except for the preponderance of their audience----  Normal average people.



> I watched a bit of The Orville and did not like it at all.



Then I doubt you really gave it a fair chance.  The show was good on every level:  fun, creative, original, fresh and not predictable.  It can only get better as the characters flesh out and develop chemistry.

I am a rabid Star Trek fan but I predict The Orville will KILL Discovery in the ratings as well as my own interest.  You see, you will never outdo or reinvent the original Star Trek.  Not the chemistry, not the quality of cast.  Orville did the next best thing:  rather than try to compete with it, they made a good-natured light parody of it.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Montrovant said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> i thought the Orville was pretty good.....confused about what it wants to be?....and why would the show be like family guy?.....Stewie and Brian are the best things on that show....otherwise that show has gone past its expiration date....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, confused.  The show, at least the first 15 minutes or so, couldn't decide if it was a drama or a comedy, and failed to do a good job at both.  The jokes fell flat, and the characters were not overly interesting or sympathetic.  It's like the writers couldn't decide if they want the show to be Star Trek or Galaxy Quest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> like many shows montro you have to give it a few episodes......TNG took the whole 1st season to be what they turned into...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I remember enjoying TNG from the start.  Also, I don't think that show was really confused about what kind of show it was; it may have just taken some time to figure out how it was going to go about it, but it knew what it was from the start.  I didn't see anything in The Orville to make me want to keep watching, and I certainly haven't seen anything from MacFarlane to trust him with a drama.
Click to expand...

in the beginning it got a lot of flak from the fans for ripping off stories from the original series and for being kinda boring.....i was at a trek convention were Patrick Stewart was there and he took a lot of shit from people telling him if you guys dont get better episodes for the 2nd season you guys are going to lose a lot of fans.....he agreed and said the Producers are aware of that...and they got better....


----------



## Harry Dresden

Synthaholic said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillMunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, from everything I've heard about ST: Discovery it will be every bit as clumsy, SJW-harrassing the viewer (other Star Trek let their diversity function as a casual, everyday thing) embarrassing and horribly dumbed down as Jar Jar Abrams horrid mockery of Star Trek movies.  I can't tell you how the hyperactive, jackhammer-in-the-brain, stupid 2009 cine-feces ended because I walked out during the last half hour.  I hated it so bad that I figured whatever I paid to get in, it was worth MORE to get out.  Not only is it the worst Star Trek I've ever seen, not only is it the worst movie I've ever seen, but I've NEVER seen a megabudget movie more incompetent on a technical level.  The lens flares, obnoxious set design lighting & cinematography, etc., etc.  J.J. Abrams Trek has zero redeeming qualities of any kind.  I haven't watched any newer Trek since that 2009 utter miscarriage of sci-fi.
> 
> My point being, everything points to Discovery as being in the same DELIBERATELY dumbed-down, obnoxious vein.  And has so many talentless idiots involved, NOTHING good can come from it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2009 Star Trek is the worst movie you have ever seen, you must have seen very few movies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 2009 reboot is a fantastic movie.  Karl Urban is a perfect Dr. McCoy.
Click to expand...

but there was no reason to make it an alternate timeline.....that killed it....


----------



## Harry Dresden

Synthaholic said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deep Space Nine was criminally underrated.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.  I thought Voyager was very good, action and alien-wise.  The Kayzon, Species 8472, The Borg...  And I don't care what anyone says, Captain Janeway was an awesome character.  Tough as nails and always ready to fight.
Click to expand...

have to concur.....


----------



## Harry Dresden

Synthaholic said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> i thought the Orville was pretty good.....confused about what it wants to be?....and why would the show be like family guy?.....*Stewie and Brian are the best things on that show*....otherwise that show has gone past its expiration date....
> 
> 
> 
> They were the only thing that was ever good on that show, with occasionally Lois.
Click to expand...

peter was getting pretty ridiculous....


----------



## toobfreak

Synthaholic said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> But in The Next Generation, Roddenberry tried his Libtard vision and it failed
Click to expand...


Don't take My word for it, Synthamoronic, those were Gene's words;  he tried to have the show where the Captain never took any risks, never went on dangerous missions, and there was little confrontation, everything was solved with mediation, talking, contrition or whatever, you know, the 24th century had moved past all that primitive stuff------  and it didn't work as a television formula.  It simply didn't grab the audience and the First Season was a flop.  It is the least popular and revamping the show for action and drama made for most of the best stories they ever had.


----------



## Harry Dresden

toobfreak said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> The race of any character in Star Trek is unlikely to make better or worse stories.  It just doesn't matter in the context of the show.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why make a point of it?  What has CBS told me about the show?  Almost nothing, but I know they have a black first officer and a gay captain.  The point is, why does it matter at all if he's gay?  Sulu was really gay yet no one even knew it until decades after the show was over.  And who is to say if the character Uhura or Scotty or Chekov was gay?  It simply wasn't a point of the story.  The only one we know for sure was hetero was Kirk.  ;^)  So the only possible point to being told he is gay is to:
> A).  Either explore gay issues in the story, and that was my original point.
> B). Attract a gay viewership.
> 
> Why is it that all of these left wing liberal organizations have this obsession with every minority in the world except for the preponderance of their audience----  Normal average people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I watched a bit of The Orville and did not like it at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I doubt you really gave it a fair chance.  The show was good on every level:  fun, creative, original, fresh and not predictable.  It can only get better as the characters flesh out and develop chemistry.
> 
> I am a rabid Star Trek fan but I predict The Orville will KILL Discovery in the ratings as well as my own interest.  You see, you will never outdo or reinvent the original Star Trek.  Not the chemistry, not the quality of cast.  Orville did the next best thing:  rather than try to compete with it, they made a good-natured light parody of it.
Click to expand...

we saw scotty and chekov with woman....


----------



## toobfreak

Harry Dresden said:


> we saw scotty and chekov with woman....



Yeah, I know.  I could tell you the exact episodes, the production numbers and everything.  I was just trying to make a point.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Will you watch?
> 
> I'll probably watch the opener out of curiosity but won't pay money to CBS to see the series.  The premise is not fresh beyond the lady Captain and XO.
> 
> 'Star Trek: Discovery' to Tackle Trump-Era Political Divide


It's all up to the quality of the writers.

What I'd like to see is what happened to the morons who cut the original series.


----------



## Montrovant

Synthaholic said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillMunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, from everything I've heard about ST: Discovery it will be every bit as clumsy, SJW-harrassing the viewer (other Star Trek let their diversity function as a casual, everyday thing) embarrassing and horribly dumbed down as Jar Jar Abrams horrid mockery of Star Trek movies.  I can't tell you how the hyperactive, jackhammer-in-the-brain, stupid 2009 cine-feces ended because I walked out during the last half hour.  I hated it so bad that I figured whatever I paid to get in, it was worth MORE to get out.  Not only is it the worst Star Trek I've ever seen, not only is it the worst movie I've ever seen, but I've NEVER seen a megabudget movie more incompetent on a technical level.  The lens flares, obnoxious set design lighting & cinematography, etc., etc.  J.J. Abrams Trek has zero redeeming qualities of any kind.  I haven't watched any newer Trek since that 2009 utter miscarriage of sci-fi.
> 
> My point being, everything points to Discovery as being in the same DELIBERATELY dumbed-down, obnoxious vein.  And has so many talentless idiots involved, NOTHING good can come from it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2009 Star Trek is the worst movie you have ever seen, you must have seen very few movies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 2009 reboot is a fantastic movie.  Karl Urban is a perfect Dr. McCoy.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't call it fantastic.  Pretty good, but far from fantastic.


----------



## Montrovant

toobfreak said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> The race of any character in Star Trek is unlikely to make better or worse stories.  It just doesn't matter in the context of the show.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why make a point of it?  What has CBS told me about the show?  Almost nothing, but I know they have a black first officer and a gay captain.  The point is, why does it matter at all if he's gay?  Sulu was really gay yet no one even knew it until decades after the show was over.  And who is to say if the character Uhura or Scotty or Chekov was gay?  It simply wasn't a point of the story.  The only one we know for sure was hetero was Kirk.  ;^)  So the only possible point to being told he is gay is to:
> A).  Either explore gay issues in the story, and that was my original point.
> B). Attract a gay viewership.
> 
> Why is it that all of these left wing liberal organizations have this obsession with every minority in the world except for the preponderance of their audience----  Normal average people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I watched a bit of The Orville and did not like it at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I doubt you really gave it a fair chance.  The show was good on every level:  fun, creative, original, fresh and not predictable.  It can only get better as the characters flesh out and develop chemistry.
> 
> I am a rabid Star Trek fan but I predict The Orville will KILL Discovery in the ratings as well as my own interest.  You see, you will never outdo or reinvent the original Star Trek.  Not the chemistry, not the quality of cast.  Orville did the next best thing:  rather than try to compete with it, they made a good-natured light parody of it.
Click to expand...


Oh, I have no doubt that announcing a gay captain (and honestly, I didn't realize that there were 2 captains or that 1 was gay) and talking about the first black, female lead are, at least in part, attempts to pull in viewers.  I'm OK with that; it's a TV show, getting viewers is what they want to do.

Sulu was not gay.  George Takei turned out to be gay, and as you said, he didn't come out as gay until the 2000s.  Takei actually opposed Sulu being gay in the new movies.  Takei has said that he talked to Roddenberry about the possibility of bringing up homosexuality in Star Trek, and Roddenberry told him it was going to far, and would lead to the show being cancelled.  George Takei Reacts to Gay Sulu News: "I Think It's Really Unfortunate"

You doubt I gave The Orville a fair chance if I did not like it?  What, anyone who gives it a fair chance (however you are defining that) is going to like it?  

Comparing ratings for The Orville and Discovery won't necessarily say anything about the comparative quality of the shows.  They are going to be broadcast in different formats.  I'm guessing Discovery will have poor ratings, however good it is, because of it being stuck on a CBS streaming service I don't expect to get that many subscribers.

Galaxy Quest was a good-natured parody of Star Trek.  I found The Orville to be a poorly executed attempt to mix Star Trek and Family Guy, failing at both.


----------



## theHawk

miketx said:


> No, Star Trek is nothing but libtard fantasy bullshit except the original series. In it, if the captain wasn't killing them, he was "kirking" them.



It's funny that Roddenberry's vision was one of a socialist utopia, no personal wealth, etc.  Yet the old show and TNG did promote conservative themes, like personal responsibility, using logic over emotions, and of course finding the bad guys and blowing them up.  There is a lot in the old shows that would be considered politically incorrect in today's Snowflake era.


----------



## Synthaholic

Harry Dresden said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillMunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, from everything I've heard about ST: Discovery it will be every bit as clumsy, SJW-harrassing the viewer (other Star Trek let their diversity function as a casual, everyday thing) embarrassing and horribly dumbed down as Jar Jar Abrams horrid mockery of Star Trek movies.  I can't tell you how the hyperactive, jackhammer-in-the-brain, stupid 2009 cine-feces ended because I walked out during the last half hour.  I hated it so bad that I figured whatever I paid to get in, it was worth MORE to get out.  Not only is it the worst Star Trek I've ever seen, not only is it the worst movie I've ever seen, but I've NEVER seen a megabudget movie more incompetent on a technical level.  The lens flares, obnoxious set design lighting & cinematography, etc., etc.  J.J. Abrams Trek has zero redeeming qualities of any kind.  I haven't watched any newer Trek since that 2009 utter miscarriage of sci-fi.
> 
> My point being, everything points to Discovery as being in the same DELIBERATELY dumbed-down, obnoxious vein.  And has so many talentless idiots involved, NOTHING good can come from it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2009 Star Trek is the worst movie you have ever seen, you must have seen very few movies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 2009 reboot is a fantastic movie.  Karl Urban is a perfect Dr. McCoy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but there was no reason to make it an alternate timeline.....that killed it....
Click to expand...

I don't pay too much attention to these Canons.  The comic book world has been changed so many times, it doesn't matter any longer.


----------



## Synthaholic

Harry Dresden said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> i thought the Orville was pretty good.....confused about what it wants to be?....and why would the show be like family guy?.....*Stewie and Brian are the best things on that show*....otherwise that show has gone past its expiration date....
> 
> 
> 
> They were the only thing that was ever good on that show, with occasionally Lois.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> peter was getting pretty ridiculous....
Click to expand...

I didn't like that character since Day One.


----------



## Synthaholic

toobfreak said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> But in The Next Generation, Roddenberry tried his Libtard vision and it failed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't take My word for it, Synthamoronic, those were Gene's words;  he tried to have the show where the Captain never took any risks, never went on dangerous missions, and there was little confrontation, everything was solved with mediation, talking, contrition or whatever, you know, the 24th century had moved past all that primitive stuff------  and it didn't work as a television formula.  It simply didn't grab the audience and the First Season was a flop.  It is the least popular and revamping the show for action and drama made for most of the best stories they ever had.
Click to expand...

You're full of shit.  Roddenberry never said any of that.  And Picard went on plenty of missions.

"There... are... FOUR... lights!"


----------



## Harry Dresden

Synthaholic said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillMunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, from everything I've heard about ST: Discovery it will be every bit as clumsy, SJW-harrassing the viewer (other Star Trek let their diversity function as a casual, everyday thing) embarrassing and horribly dumbed down as Jar Jar Abrams horrid mockery of Star Trek movies.  I can't tell you how the hyperactive, jackhammer-in-the-brain, stupid 2009 cine-feces ended because I walked out during the last half hour.  I hated it so bad that I figured whatever I paid to get in, it was worth MORE to get out.  Not only is it the worst Star Trek I've ever seen, not only is it the worst movie I've ever seen, but I've NEVER seen a megabudget movie more incompetent on a technical level.  The lens flares, obnoxious set design lighting & cinematography, etc., etc.  J.J. Abrams Trek has zero redeeming qualities of any kind.  I haven't watched any newer Trek since that 2009 utter miscarriage of sci-fi.
> 
> My point being, everything points to Discovery as being in the same DELIBERATELY dumbed-down, obnoxious vein.  And has so many talentless idiots involved, NOTHING good can come from it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2009 Star Trek is the worst movie you have ever seen, you must have seen very few movies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 2009 reboot is a fantastic movie.  Karl Urban is a perfect Dr. McCoy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but there was no reason to make it an alternate timeline.....that killed it....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't pay too much attention to these Canons.  The comic book world has been changed so many times, it doesn't matter any longer.
Click to expand...

star trek did not come from the comic book world.....


----------



## toobfreak

Synthaholic said:


> You're full of shit.  Roddenberry never said any of that.



Right from the horse's ass.  Why don't you research it before you speak.



> And Picard went on plenty of missions.



Right!  After they made the format change I spoke of!  The whole first season, they had Riker first sitting on him like a mother to keep him safe, then finally going to great lengths to "justifying" his going down to a planet on special occasions as the season evolved and the writers had increasing difficulty and frustration writing the episodes and the feedback from the network and ratings sank.

The show eventually ended right back to where it had to be and not where Gene wished:  as a sci-fi TV drama driven by advertising rather than the cerebral realism and message that Gene hoped for, kind of exactly why his original first pilot 'The Cage' failed.


----------



## longknife

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Will you watch?
> 
> I'll probably watch the opener out of curiosity but won't pay money to CBS to see the series.  The premise is not fresh beyond the lady Captain and XO.
> 
> 'Star Trek: Discovery' to Tackle Trump-Era Political Divide



A local TV cable channel shows all of the Star Trek franchises and I regularly DVR some of them. 

As for this CBS piece of garbage, like someone else, I'll watch the opener but there's no way in Hades that I'm going to pay to see the rest.


----------



## Synthaholic

Harry Dresden said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillMunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, from everything I've heard about ST: Discovery it will be every bit as clumsy, SJW-harrassing the viewer (other Star Trek let their diversity function as a casual, everyday thing) embarrassing and horribly dumbed down as Jar Jar Abrams horrid mockery of Star Trek movies.  I can't tell you how the hyperactive, jackhammer-in-the-brain, stupid 2009 cine-feces ended because I walked out during the last half hour.  I hated it so bad that I figured whatever I paid to get in, it was worth MORE to get out.  Not only is it the worst Star Trek I've ever seen, not only is it the worst movie I've ever seen, but I've NEVER seen a megabudget movie more incompetent on a technical level.  The lens flares, obnoxious set design lighting & cinematography, etc., etc.  J.J. Abrams Trek has zero redeeming qualities of any kind.  I haven't watched any newer Trek since that 2009 utter miscarriage of sci-fi.
> 
> My point being, everything points to Discovery as being in the same DELIBERATELY dumbed-down, obnoxious vein.  And has so many talentless idiots involved, NOTHING good can come from it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2009 Star Trek is the worst movie you have ever seen, you must have seen very few movies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 2009 reboot is a fantastic movie.  Karl Urban is a perfect Dr. McCoy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but there was no reason to make it an alternate timeline.....that killed it....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't pay too much attention to these Canons.  The comic book world has been changed so many times, it doesn't matter any longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> star trek did not come from the comic book world.....
Click to expand...

Yes, I know that.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Doesn't change my point.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Synthaholic said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2009 Star Trek is the worst movie you have ever seen, you must have seen very few movies.
> 
> 
> 
> The 2009 reboot is a fantastic movie.  Karl Urban is a perfect Dr. McCoy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but there was no reason to make it an alternate timeline.....that killed it....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't pay too much attention to these Canons.  The comic book world has been changed so many times, it doesn't matter any longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> star trek did not come from the comic book world.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I know that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't change my point.
Click to expand...

if you knew that,why did you say it?.....just askin.....and yes it makes a big difference....Star Trek had a 50 year timeline....J.J. Abrams was a horrible pick to do a reboot,someone who actually watched the series and was a fan should have been picked......


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Darkwind said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will you watch?
> 
> I'll probably watch the opener out of curiosity but won't pay money to CBS to see the series.  The premise is not fresh beyond the lady Captain and XO.
> 
> 'Star Trek: Discovery' to Tackle Trump-Era Political Divide
> 
> 
> 
> From what I've read about it, no.  I'll watch the series opener at most.  From what I've seen of the design of the Enterprise, it looks to be pretty pathetic.  A lot of people were upset by that design.  lol  It looks like shit.
Click to expand...


Enterprise?

Can you be any more clueless, commenting on something you obviously know nothing about?

Oh, wait!  You always do that, don't you?


----------



## PredFan

It's going to suck ass. I guarantee it.


----------



## Synthaholic

PredFan said:


> It's going to suck ass. I guarantee it.


Well, you are the authority on sucking ass, so . . .


----------



## PredFan

Synthaholic said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's going to suck ass. I guarantee it.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you are the authority on sucking ass, so . . .
Click to expand...


What are you 12 years old?


----------



## Darkwind

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will you watch?
> 
> I'll probably watch the opener out of curiosity but won't pay money to CBS to see the series.  The premise is not fresh beyond the lady Captain and XO.
> 
> 'Star Trek: Discovery' to Tackle Trump-Era Political Divide
> 
> 
> 
> From what I've read about it, no.  I'll watch the series opener at most.  From what I've seen of the design of the Enterprise, it looks to be pretty pathetic.  A lot of people were upset by that design.  lol  It looks like shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Enterprise?
> 
> Can you be any more clueless, commenting on something you obviously know nothing about?
> 
> Oh, wait!  You always do that, don't you?
Click to expand...

Clearly I was thinking Star Trek and typed Enterprise by habit.  Of course the ships name is Discovery, and of course, the fans still did not like the ship design.

Get back to your rubber ducky navy.


----------



## WillMunny

Synthaholic said:


> WillMunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, from everything I've heard about ST: Discovery it will be every bit as clumsy, *SJW-harrassing the viewer* (other Star Trek let their diversity function as a casual, everyday thing) embarrassing and horribly dumbed down as Jar Jar Abrams horrid mockery of Star Trek movies.
> 
> 
> 
> You poor cuck.  Better find your safe space now before they're all gone!
Click to expand...


Safe space?  You idiot, you don't even know the FUCKING DEFINITION of a "safe space", you horse's ass!  Explaining what I like or dislike about a certain entertainment IS NOT GETTING SCARED AND TRAUMATIZED!!!!  It's simply a matter of expressing an opinion, that's all, you poor, drooling vegetable.


----------



## WillMunny

Actually, you want to see a good recent Star Trek series?  The YouTube fan series "Star Trek Continues" starring Vic Mignogna as an exact clone of Shatner in every detail.  They use the sets/uniforms/music/production values of the original Star Trek so it feels identical to the original.  And the story lines are so ambitious it's the best homage to the original Star Trek I've ever seen. They have at least a dozen episodes on YT and you can tell they put a lot of time and energy into it.


----------



## Synthaholic

WillMunny said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillMunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, from everything I've heard about ST: Discovery it will be every bit as clumsy, *SJW-harrassing the viewer* (other Star Trek let their diversity function as a casual, everyday thing) embarrassing and horribly dumbed down as Jar Jar Abrams horrid mockery of Star Trek movies.
> 
> 
> 
> You poor cuck.  Better find your safe space now before they're all gone!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Safe space?  You idiot, you don't even know the FUCKING DEFINITION of a "safe space", you horse's ass!  Explaining what I like or dislike about a certain entertainment IS NOT GETTING SCARED AND TRAUMATIZED!!!!  It's simply a matter of expressing an opinion, that's all, you poor, drooling vegetable.
Click to expand...

You obviously have a fear of Social Justice Warriors.  Just hide, like your gut tells you.


----------



## WillMunny

theHawk said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Star Trek is nothing but libtard fantasy bullshit except the original series. In it, if the captain wasn't killing them, he was "kirking" them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny that Roddenberry's vision was one of a socialist utopia, no personal wealth, etc.  Yet the old show and TNG did promote conservative themes, like personal responsibility, using logic over emotions, and of course finding the bad guys and blowing them up.  There is a lot in the old shows that would be considered politically incorrect in today's Snowflake era.
Click to expand...


Thank you, you've summed up what I've been saying on this thread better than I did: Star Trek explores certain human values that can be claimed by either side of the political aisle.  Even though it sloped a little to the Left, it did it in a fair, thoughtful way I can respect, even if I'm not sure I agreed with the story's resolution.  Star Trek (all TV series) was always at its best when it presents you with extremely ambivalent moral dilemmas in which both choices felt right and wrong at the same time.  Then after the story is resolved, I'm not sure if I'm completely happy with the resolution, but I do understand the reasoning behind it. I really respect that type of Trek story because it treats me, the viewer, like I'm intelligent enough to understand the conflict and make up my own mind.


----------



## WillMunny

Synthaholic said:


> WillMunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillMunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, from everything I've heard about ST: Discovery it will be every bit as clumsy, *SJW-harrassing the viewer* (other Star Trek let their diversity function as a casual, everyday thing) embarrassing and horribly dumbed down as Jar Jar Abrams horrid mockery of Star Trek movies.
> 
> 
> 
> You poor cuck.  Better find your safe space now before they're all gone!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Safe space?  You idiot, you don't even know the FUCKING DEFINITION of a "safe space", you horse's ass!  Explaining what I like or dislike about a certain entertainment IS NOT GETTING SCARED AND TRAUMATIZED!!!!  It's simply a matter of expressing an opinion, that's all, you poor, drooling vegetable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You obviously have a fear of Social Justice Warriors.  Just hide, like your gut tells you.
Click to expand...


Cretin, I still don't know what Social Justice Warriors and my opinion of them have THE FUCK TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT I PERSONALLY LIKE A CERTAIN STAR TREK!!!  I don't require a safe space, my dear special needs student; I'm simply stating there are some incarnations of Star Trek that I've liked and some I didn't like. WHAT THE FUCK does my opinion of a TV show have to do with SJWs & "Safe Spaces"?  Not a goddamned thing, you Skittle-brained, silly little thing!  I'm not offended, scared, or running away, I'm simply here offering various critiques on a TV show and that's all!  Really, I've never required Play-Doh or coloring books if I see a Star Trek that was badly done.  What the FUCK is your obsessive problem with my Star Trek tastes?  You're a hell of a lot more obsessed than I am.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Darkwind said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will you watch?
> 
> I'll probably watch the opener out of curiosity but won't pay money to CBS to see the series.  The premise is not fresh beyond the lady Captain and XO.
> 
> 'Star Trek: Discovery' to Tackle Trump-Era Political Divide
> 
> 
> 
> From what I've read about it, no.  I'll watch the series opener at most.  From what I've seen of the design of the Enterprise, it looks to be pretty pathetic.  A lot of people were upset by that design.  lol  It looks like shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Enterprise?
> 
> Can you be any more clueless, commenting on something you obviously know nothing about?
> 
> Oh, wait!  You always do that, don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly I was thinking Star Trek and typed Enterprise by habit.  Of course the ships name is Discovery, and of course, the fans still did not like the ship design.
> 
> Get back to your rubber ducky navy.
Click to expand...


How typical!  You fuck up and then blame me for your stupidity.


----------



## WillMunny

Regardless of politics, I think it would behoove everyone to remember that today's violent, rabid-animal, rageaholic, hate-hurricane "Obama liberals" are a COMPLETELY different species from the old-fashioned, moderate "JFK liberals" involved in making Star Trek.  I'm an ex-liberal now so trust me, I know.


----------



## Harry Dresden

WillMunny said:


> Actually, you want to see a good recent Star Trek series?  The YouTube fan series "Star Trek Continues" starring Vic Mignogna as an exact clone of Shatner in every detail.  They use the sets/uniforms/music/production values of the original Star Trek so it feels identical to the original.  And the story lines are so ambitious it's the best homage to the original Star Trek I've ever seen. They have at least a dozen episodes on YT and you can tell they put a lot of time and energy into it.


they have some pretty poor casting on that series on YT.....sulu with bags under his eyes?....lol....they did not do justice to uhura either.....


----------



## MaryL

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Will you watch?
> 
> I'll probably watch the opener out of curiosity but won't pay money to CBS to see the series.  The premise is not fresh beyond the lady Captain and XO.
> 
> 'Star Trek: Discovery' to Tackle Trump-Era Political Divide


Probably. I don't think any other efforts have ever come close to the original Trek , despite the bad effects and acting, it is what it is. I love the  original show but we need to stop further incarnations, nice try. End it.


----------



## theHawk

Synthaholic said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillMunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, from everything I've heard about ST: Discovery it will be every bit as clumsy, SJW-harrassing the viewer (other Star Trek let their diversity function as a casual, everyday thing) embarrassing and horribly dumbed down as Jar Jar Abrams horrid mockery of Star Trek movies.  I can't tell you how the hyperactive, jackhammer-in-the-brain, stupid 2009 cine-feces ended because I walked out during the last half hour.  I hated it so bad that I figured whatever I paid to get in, it was worth MORE to get out.  Not only is it the worst Star Trek I've ever seen, not only is it the worst movie I've ever seen, but I've NEVER seen a megabudget movie more incompetent on a technical level.  The lens flares, obnoxious set design lighting & cinematography, etc., etc.  J.J. Abrams Trek has zero redeeming qualities of any kind.  I haven't watched any newer Trek since that 2009 utter miscarriage of sci-fi.
> 
> My point being, everything points to Discovery as being in the same DELIBERATELY dumbed-down, obnoxious vein.  And has so many talentless idiots involved, NOTHING good can come from it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2009 Star Trek is the worst movie you have ever seen, you must have seen very few movies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 2009 reboot is a fantastic movie.  Karl Urban is a perfect Dr. McCoy.
Click to expand...


I think the reboots were ok movies, but they weren't good Star Trek movies.  I agree Karl Urban was a perfect McCoy, but the new Kirk was terrible.  All they did was make him a wild cowboy, if you watch the old show, young Kirk was very calculating and calm.  In the movies when he was much older he was more of a cowboy, but he wasn't like that when he was young.

JJ Abrams ruined the Star Trek franchise.  He turned it into a Michael Bay action movie in space using regurgitated Star Trek characters.  His TV show Lost was one of the worst sci-fi shows I ever sat through.  I knew he would ruin Star Wars as well and he sure as hell did, that movie was a flaming pile of garbage.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

theHawk said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillMunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, from everything I've heard about ST: Discovery it will be every bit as clumsy, SJW-harrassing the viewer (other Star Trek let their diversity function as a casual, everyday thing) embarrassing and horribly dumbed down as Jar Jar Abrams horrid mockery of Star Trek movies.  I can't tell you how the hyperactive, jackhammer-in-the-brain, stupid 2009 cine-feces ended because I walked out during the last half hour.  I hated it so bad that I figured whatever I paid to get in, it was worth MORE to get out.  Not only is it the worst Star Trek I've ever seen, not only is it the worst movie I've ever seen, but I've NEVER seen a megabudget movie more incompetent on a technical level.  The lens flares, obnoxious set design lighting & cinematography, etc., etc.  J.J. Abrams Trek has zero redeeming qualities of any kind.  I haven't watched any newer Trek since that 2009 utter miscarriage of sci-fi.
> 
> My point being, everything points to Discovery as being in the same DELIBERATELY dumbed-down, obnoxious vein.  And has so many talentless idiots involved, NOTHING good can come from it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2009 Star Trek is the worst movie you have ever seen, you must have seen very few movies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 2009 reboot is a fantastic movie.  Karl Urban is a perfect Dr. McCoy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the reboots were ok movies, but they weren't good Star Trek movies.  I agree Karl Urban was a perfect McCoy, but the new Kirk was terrible.
Click to expand...


Michael Weatherley (DiNozzo on NCIS) would have made a better Kirk.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

WillMunny said:


> Regardless of politics, I think it would behoove everyone to remember that today's violent, rabid-animal, rageaholic, hate-hurricane "Obama liberals" are a COMPLETELY different species from the old-fashioned, moderate "JFK liberals" involved in making Star Trek.  I'm an ex-liberal now so trust me, I know.



I've seen some


WillMunny said:


> Actually, you want to see a good recent Star Trek series?  The YouTube fan series "Star Trek Continues" starring Vic Mignogna as an exact clone of Shatner in every detail.  They use the sets/uniforms/music/production values of the original Star Trek so it feels identical to the original.  And the story lines are so ambitious it's the best homage to the original Star Trek I've ever seen. They have at least a dozen episodes on YT and you can tell they put a lot of time and energy into it.



I've seen some of that.  Pretty good for fan-based work.  They do a good job of capturing the atmosphere of the original.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Synthaholic said:


> WillMunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillMunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, from everything I've heard about ST: Discovery it will be every bit as clumsy, *SJW-harrassing the viewer* (other Star Trek let their diversity function as a casual, everyday thing) embarrassing and horribly dumbed down as Jar Jar Abrams horrid mockery of Star Trek movies.
> 
> 
> 
> You poor cuck.  Better find your safe space now before they're all gone!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Safe space?  You idiot, you don't even know the FUCKING DEFINITION of a "safe space", you horse's ass!  Explaining what I like or dislike about a certain entertainment IS NOT GETTING SCARED AND TRAUMATIZED!!!!  It's simply a matter of expressing an opinion, that's all, you poor, drooling vegetable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You obviously have a fear of Social Justice Warriors.  Just hide, like your gut tells you.
Click to expand...


They are boring and silly.


----------



## Synthaholic

WillMunny said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillMunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillMunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, from everything I've heard about ST: Discovery it will be every bit as clumsy, *SJW-harrassing the viewer* (other Star Trek let their diversity function as a casual, everyday thing) embarrassing and horribly dumbed down as Jar Jar Abrams horrid mockery of Star Trek movies.
> 
> 
> 
> You poor cuck.  Better find your safe space now before they're all gone!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Safe space?  You idiot, you don't even know the FUCKING DEFINITION of a "safe space", you horse's ass!  Explaining what I like or dislike about a certain entertainment IS NOT GETTING SCARED AND TRAUMATIZED!!!!  It's simply a matter of expressing an opinion, that's all, you poor, drooling vegetable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You obviously have a fear of Social Justice Warriors.  Just hide, like your gut tells you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cretin, I still don't know what Social Justice Warriors and my opinion of them have THE FUCK TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT I PERSONALLY LIKE A CERTAIN STAR TREK!!!
Click to expand...

You're the one who injected your fear of SJW into this thread.  Now you're upset that I noticed and called you out for it.


----------



## WillMunny

Synthaholic said:


> WillMunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillMunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillMunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, from everything I've heard about ST: Discovery it will be every bit as clumsy, *SJW-harrassing the viewer* (other Star Trek let their diversity function as a casual, everyday thing) embarrassing and horribly dumbed down as Jar Jar Abrams horrid mockery of Star Trek movies.
> 
> 
> 
> You poor cuck.  Better find your safe space now before they're all gone!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Safe space?  You idiot, you don't even know the FUCKING DEFINITION of a "safe space", you horse's ass!  Explaining what I like or dislike about a certain entertainment IS NOT GETTING SCARED AND TRAUMATIZED!!!!  It's simply a matter of expressing an opinion, that's all, you poor, drooling vegetable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You obviously have a fear of Social Justice Warriors.  Just hide, like your gut tells you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cretin, I still don't know what Social Justice Warriors and my opinion of them have THE FUCK TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT I PERSONALLY LIKE A CERTAIN STAR TREK!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the one who injected your fear of SJW into this thread.  Now you're upset that I noticed and called you out for it.
Click to expand...


You delusional fuck, it's not fear, it's disgust, you Skittle-brained abomination.  Welcome to my ignore list, because you are such a repugnant, stalker-insect, you feel the need to harass me over STAR TREK, of all things?????  You cancer-deserving rectal problem, I never want to hear from a sniveling, sissified UNBELIEVABLY STUPID bugs I've ever seen.  Fuck you with a cactus unlubed, stay the fuck away from me, odious little menial in every aspect of life.


----------



## WillMunny

Harry Dresden said:


> WillMunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you want to see a good recent Star Trek series?  The YouTube fan series "Star Trek Continues" starring Vic Mignogna as an exact clone of Shatner in every detail.  They use the sets/uniforms/music/production values of the original Star Trek so it feels identical to the original.  And the story lines are so ambitious it's the best homage to the original Star Trek I've ever seen. They have at least a dozen episodes on YT and you can tell they put a lot of time and energy into it.
> 
> 
> 
> they have some pretty poor casting on that series on YT.....sulu with bags under his eyes?....lol....they did not do justice to uhura either.....
Click to expand...


Are you sure that wasn't the other YT fan series, "Star Trek Phase 2"?  They're two different original Trek fan series that were on YT at the same time by two different groups of people.  But "Star Trek Continues" has the better acting between the two and had far, far more coherent, sensible story-telling and plots.  If you watch both, Star Trek Continues really seems like the more professionally polished of the two.

In other words, "Star Trek Continues" Vic Mignogna is a 10000000x better, more exact Captain Kirk than "Star Trek Phase 2" James Cawley as Kirk.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillMunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, from everything I've heard about ST: Discovery it will be every bit as clumsy, SJW-harrassing the viewer (other Star Trek let their diversity function as a casual, everyday thing) embarrassing and horribly dumbed down as Jar Jar Abrams horrid mockery of Star Trek movies.  I can't tell you how the hyperactive, jackhammer-in-the-brain, stupid 2009 cine-feces ended because I walked out during the last half hour.  I hated it so bad that I figured whatever I paid to get in, it was worth MORE to get out.  Not only is it the worst Star Trek I've ever seen, not only is it the worst movie I've ever seen, but I've NEVER seen a megabudget movie more incompetent on a technical level.  The lens flares, obnoxious set design lighting & cinematography, etc., etc.  J.J. Abrams Trek has zero redeeming qualities of any kind.  I haven't watched any newer Trek since that 2009 utter miscarriage of sci-fi.
> 
> My point being, everything points to Discovery as being in the same DELIBERATELY dumbed-down, obnoxious vein.  And has so many talentless idiots involved, NOTHING good can come from it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2009 Star Trek is the worst movie you have ever seen, you must have seen very few movies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try Lou Ferrigno's *Hercules*.
Click to expand...


Hudson Hawk!

Worst Movie Ever!


----------



## Montrovant

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillMunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, from everything I've heard about ST: Discovery it will be every bit as clumsy, SJW-harrassing the viewer (other Star Trek let their diversity function as a casual, everyday thing) embarrassing and horribly dumbed down as Jar Jar Abrams horrid mockery of Star Trek movies.  I can't tell you how the hyperactive, jackhammer-in-the-brain, stupid 2009 cine-feces ended because I walked out during the last half hour.  I hated it so bad that I figured whatever I paid to get in, it was worth MORE to get out.  Not only is it the worst Star Trek I've ever seen, not only is it the worst movie I've ever seen, but I've NEVER seen a megabudget movie more incompetent on a technical level.  The lens flares, obnoxious set design lighting & cinematography, etc., etc.  J.J. Abrams Trek has zero redeeming qualities of any kind.  I haven't watched any newer Trek since that 2009 utter miscarriage of sci-fi.
> 
> My point being, everything points to Discovery as being in the same DELIBERATELY dumbed-down, obnoxious vein.  And has so many talentless idiots involved, NOTHING good can come from it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2009 Star Trek is the worst movie you have ever seen, you must have seen very few movies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try Lou Ferrigno's *Hercules*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hudson Hawk!
> 
> Worst Movie Ever!
Click to expand...


Hudson Hawk?  It's been many years, but I don't remember it being that bad.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney

Montrovant said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillMunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, from everything I've heard about ST: Discovery it will be every bit as clumsy, SJW-harrassing the viewer (other Star Trek let their diversity function as a casual, everyday thing) embarrassing and horribly dumbed down as Jar Jar Abrams horrid mockery of Star Trek movies.  I can't tell you how the hyperactive, jackhammer-in-the-brain, stupid 2009 cine-feces ended because I walked out during the last half hour.  I hated it so bad that I figured whatever I paid to get in, it was worth MORE to get out.  Not only is it the worst Star Trek I've ever seen, not only is it the worst movie I've ever seen, but I've NEVER seen a megabudget movie more incompetent on a technical level.  The lens flares, obnoxious set design lighting & cinematography, etc., etc.  J.J. Abrams Trek has zero redeeming qualities of any kind.  I haven't watched any newer Trek since that 2009 utter miscarriage of sci-fi.
> 
> My point being, everything points to Discovery as being in the same DELIBERATELY dumbed-down, obnoxious vein.  And has so many talentless idiots involved, NOTHING good can come from it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2009 Star Trek is the worst movie you have ever seen, you must have seen very few movies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try Lou Ferrigno's *Hercules*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hudson Hawk!
> 
> Worst Movie Ever!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hudson Hawk?  It's been many years, but I don't remember it being that bad.
Click to expand...


It won razzies because it was so bad!

Bruce Willis had some bombs early in his career and that was one...


----------



## Harry Dresden

WillMunny said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillMunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you want to see a good recent Star Trek series?  The YouTube fan series "Star Trek Continues" starring Vic Mignogna as an exact clone of Shatner in every detail.  They use the sets/uniforms/music/production values of the original Star Trek so it feels identical to the original.  And the story lines are so ambitious it's the best homage to the original Star Trek I've ever seen. They have at least a dozen episodes on YT and you can tell they put a lot of time and energy into it.
> 
> 
> 
> they have some pretty poor casting on that series on YT.....sulu with bags under his eyes?....lol....they did not do justice to uhura either.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sure that wasn't the other YT fan series, "Star Trek Phase 2"?  They're two different original Trek fan series that were on YT at the same time by two different groups of people.  But "Star Trek Continues" has the better acting between the two and had far, far more coherent, sensible story-telling and plots.  If you watch both, Star Trek Continues really seems like the more professionally polished of the two.
> 
> In other words, "Star Trek Continues" Vic Mignogna is a 10000000x better, more exact Captain Kirk than "Star Trek Phase 2" James Cawley as Kirk.
Click to expand...

let me check it out.....maybe i am looking at 2


----------



## Montrovant

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillMunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, from everything I've heard about ST: Discovery it will be every bit as clumsy, SJW-harrassing the viewer (other Star Trek let their diversity function as a casual, everyday thing) embarrassing and horribly dumbed down as Jar Jar Abrams horrid mockery of Star Trek movies.  I can't tell you how the hyperactive, jackhammer-in-the-brain, stupid 2009 cine-feces ended because I walked out during the last half hour.  I hated it so bad that I figured whatever I paid to get in, it was worth MORE to get out.  Not only is it the worst Star Trek I've ever seen, not only is it the worst movie I've ever seen, but I've NEVER seen a megabudget movie more incompetent on a technical level.  The lens flares, obnoxious set design lighting & cinematography, etc., etc.  J.J. Abrams Trek has zero redeeming qualities of any kind.  I haven't watched any newer Trek since that 2009 utter miscarriage of sci-fi.
> 
> My point being, everything points to Discovery as being in the same DELIBERATELY dumbed-down, obnoxious vein.  And has so many talentless idiots involved, NOTHING good can come from it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2009 Star Trek is the worst movie you have ever seen, you must have seen very few movies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try Lou Ferrigno's *Hercules*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hudson Hawk!
> 
> Worst Movie Ever!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hudson Hawk?  It's been many years, but I don't remember it being that bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It won razzies because it was so bad!
> 
> Bruce Willis had some bombs early in his career and that was one...
Click to expand...


I disagree with quite a few of the Razzies for worst picture.  I didn't mind The Adventures of Ford Fairlane; it was a stupid movie, but that's what you get with Andrew Dice Clay.  I thought it was a well-made stupid movie.    I liked The Postman, and that won in 97.  Star Trek V may have been the worst of the Trek movies, but it didn't deserve to be named worst movie of the year.  

And there are plenty of other winners for worst picture that I definitely would put below Hudson Hawk.  Catwoman, Battlefield Earth, Showgirls, those are some craptacular movies.


----------



## WillMunny

Montrovant said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2009 Star Trek is the worst movie you have ever seen, you must have seen very few movies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try Lou Ferrigno's *Hercules*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hudson Hawk!
> 
> Worst Movie Ever!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hudson Hawk?  It's been many years, but I don't remember it being that bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It won razzies because it was so bad!
> 
> Bruce Willis had some bombs early in his career and that was one...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree with quite a few of the Razzies for worst picture.  I didn't mind The Adventures of Ford Fairlane; it was a stupid movie, but that's what you get with Andrew Dice Clay.  I thought it was a well-made stupid movie.    I liked The Postman, and that won in 97.  Star Trek V may have been the worst of the Trek movies, but it didn't deserve to be named worst movie of the year.
> 
> And there are plenty of other winners for worst picture that I definitely would put below Hudson Hawk.  Catwoman, Battlefield Earth, Showgirls, those are some craptacular movies.
Click to expand...


I don't always agree with the Razzie choices either but I still think they're a lot more accurate than the Oscars.  The majority of Razzie-winners are movies which deserve to be hated.  Like John Trasholta's Battlefield Earth, another movie too loathsome to finish.  I still respect Halle Berry excitedly accepting her Razzie for Catwoman; when she got up on stage she said the reason she was there is because, "if you can't be a good loser, you can't be a good winner."


----------



## Montrovant

WillMunny said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try Lou Ferrigno's *Hercules*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hudson Hawk!
> 
> Worst Movie Ever!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hudson Hawk?  It's been many years, but I don't remember it being that bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It won razzies because it was so bad!
> 
> Bruce Willis had some bombs early in his career and that was one...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree with quite a few of the Razzies for worst picture.  I didn't mind The Adventures of Ford Fairlane; it was a stupid movie, but that's what you get with Andrew Dice Clay.  I thought it was a well-made stupid movie.    I liked The Postman, and that won in 97.  Star Trek V may have been the worst of the Trek movies, but it didn't deserve to be named worst movie of the year.
> 
> And there are plenty of other winners for worst picture that I definitely would put below Hudson Hawk.  Catwoman, Battlefield Earth, Showgirls, those are some craptacular movies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't always agree with the Razzie choices either but I still think they're a lot more accurate than the Oscars.  The majority of Razzie-winners are movies which deserve to be hated.  Like John Trasholta's Battlefield Earth, another movie too loathsome to finish.
Click to expand...


I don't pay attention to the Oscars generally.  I wouldn't be surprised if they are less accurate, though.


----------



## WillMunny

Montrovant said:


> WillMunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hudson Hawk!
> 
> Worst Movie Ever!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hudson Hawk?  It's been many years, but I don't remember it being that bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It won razzies because it was so bad!
> 
> Bruce Willis had some bombs early in his career and that was one...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree with quite a few of the Razzies for worst picture.  I didn't mind The Adventures of Ford Fairlane; it was a stupid movie, but that's what you get with Andrew Dice Clay.  I thought it was a well-made stupid movie.    I liked The Postman, and that won in 97.  Star Trek V may have been the worst of the Trek movies, but it didn't deserve to be named worst movie of the year.
> 
> And there are plenty of other winners for worst picture that I definitely would put below Hudson Hawk.  Catwoman, Battlefield Earth, Showgirls, those are some craptacular movies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't always agree with the Razzie choices either but I still think they're a lot more accurate than the Oscars.  The majority of Razzie-winners are movies which deserve to be hated.  Like John Trasholta's Battlefield Earth, another movie too loathsome to finish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't pay attention to the Oscars generally.  I wouldn't be surprised if they are less accurate, though.
Click to expand...


The only time the Oscars got it completely right was when they gave at least a record dozen awards to the most epic movie of all time, Lord of the Rings: Return of the King for 2003.  It was a larger-than-life epic so poignant that some scenes made me cry.... but don't worry, they were manly, macho tears, LOL!


----------



## jon_berzerk

looks like a waste of time


----------



## deanrd

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Will you watch?
> 
> I'll probably watch the opener out of curiosity but won't pay money to CBS to see the series.  The premise is not fresh beyond the lady Captain and XO.
> 
> 'Star Trek: Discovery' to Tackle Trump-Era Political Divide


The Federation is a coalition organization filled with diversity.

The Klingons are racist.  They are like Republicans with science.  Only we know, Republicans don't believe in science.

The majority of Republicans say colleges are bad for America (yes, really)


----------



## Montrovant

WillMunny said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillMunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hudson Hawk?  It's been many years, but I don't remember it being that bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It won razzies because it was so bad!
> 
> Bruce Willis had some bombs early in his career and that was one...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree with quite a few of the Razzies for worst picture.  I didn't mind The Adventures of Ford Fairlane; it was a stupid movie, but that's what you get with Andrew Dice Clay.  I thought it was a well-made stupid movie.    I liked The Postman, and that won in 97.  Star Trek V may have been the worst of the Trek movies, but it didn't deserve to be named worst movie of the year.
> 
> And there are plenty of other winners for worst picture that I definitely would put below Hudson Hawk.  Catwoman, Battlefield Earth, Showgirls, those are some craptacular movies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't always agree with the Razzie choices either but I still think they're a lot more accurate than the Oscars.  The majority of Razzie-winners are movies which deserve to be hated.  Like John Trasholta's Battlefield Earth, another movie too loathsome to finish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't pay attention to the Oscars generally.  I wouldn't be surprised if they are less accurate, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only time the Oscars got it completely right was when they gave at least a record dozen awards to the most epic movie of all time, Lord of the Rings: Return of the King for 2003.  It was a larger-than-life epic so poignant that some scenes made me cry.... but don't worry, they were manly, macho tears, LOL!
Click to expand...


I thought the first movie was the best of that trilogy.  The second and third both dragged a bit.  Usually I think movies need more time, to flesh out characters or further develop the plot, but the second and third LOTR movies actually could have used some cutting.


----------



## Synthaholic

WillMunny said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillMunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillMunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You poor cuck.  Better find your safe space now before they're all gone!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Safe space?  You idiot, you don't even know the FUCKING DEFINITION of a "safe space", you horse's ass!  Explaining what I like or dislike about a certain entertainment IS NOT GETTING SCARED AND TRAUMATIZED!!!!  It's simply a matter of expressing an opinion, that's all, you poor, drooling vegetable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You obviously have a fear of Social Justice Warriors.  Just hide, like your gut tells you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cretin, I still don't know what Social Justice Warriors and my opinion of them have THE FUCK TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT I PERSONALLY LIKE A CERTAIN STAR TREK!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the one who injected your fear of SJW into this thread.  Now you're upset that I noticed and called you out for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You delusional fuck, it's not fear, it's disgust, you Skittle-brained abomination.  *Welcome to my ignore list*, because you are such a repugnant, stalker-insect, you feel the need to harass me over STAR TREK, of all things?????  You cancer-deserving rectal problem, I never want to hear from a sniveling, sissified UNBELIEVABLY STUPID bugs I've ever seen.  Fuck you with a cactus unlubed, stay the fuck away from me, odious little menial in every aspect of life.
Click to expand...

Whew!  Glad I won't have to see his whiny bitch ass any more!


----------



## Synthaholic

deanrd said:


> The Klingons are racist.  They are like Republicans with science.  Only we know, Republicans don't believe in science.


I'd vote for a Klingon over a Republican any day.

Klingons have honor.


----------



## Mr.Blonde

I was very excited for the new series when they announced Fuller as show runner. After he left I became less so. When I saw the trailer I thought it looked horrible. 

What makes it look horrible (to me) is that it is supposed to take place in the prime universe, but looks like the Abram's Trek. It is also supposed to take place before TOS, but looks like it takes place after. 

I don't understand why they picked a time so close to one of the series especially the original.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Synthaholic said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Klingons are racist.  They are like Republicans with science.  Only we know, Republicans don't believe in science.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd vote for a Klingon over a Republican any day.
> 
> Klingons have honor.
Click to expand...


They also don't suffer fools.  Just a thought.


----------



## Montrovant

Mr.Blonde said:


> I was very excited for the new series when they announced Fuller as show runner. After he left I became less so. When I saw the trailer I thought it looked horrible.
> 
> What makes it look horrible (to me) is that it is supposed to take place in the prime universe, but looks like the Abram's Trek. It is also supposed to take place before TOS, but looks like it takes place after.
> 
> I don't understand why they picked a time so close to one of the series especially the original.



I was excited because of Fuller, too.  When he moved on to American Gods, I became worried.

One of the problems with sci-fi prequels is that visual technology improves, and that ends up making the technology of the movie or show seem more advanced.


----------



## Mr.Blonde

Montrovant said:


> One of the problems with sci-fi prequels is that visual technology improves, and that ends up making the technology of the movie or show seem more advanced.



Which is why I didn't understand their choice in setting.

On another note:

It has been reported that CBS hired Nicholas Meyer to do something Star Trek. I am wondering if he is developing a new series just in case/when it fails.

I saw that they have "first reactions" but don't see well known Trekkies like Dan Murrell or Scott Collura, or a well known TV critic like Alan Sepinwall.

I am going to watch at least the first episode. I subscribe to All Access anyway since getting rid of cable for the few shows my wife and I watch. 

I just get the feeling that CBS at this point are taking the money and running. I just wonder if Netflix will file a law suit.


----------



## Montrovant

Mr.Blonde said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the problems with sci-fi prequels is that visual technology improves, and that ends up making the technology of the movie or show seem more advanced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why I didn't understand their choice in setting.
> 
> On another note:
> 
> It has been reported that CBS hired Nicholas Meyer to do something Star Trek. I am wondering if he is developing a new series just in case/when it fails.
> 
> I saw that they have "first reactions" but don't see well known Trekkies like Dan Murrell or Scott Collura, or a well known TV critic like Alan Sepinwall.
> 
> I am going to watch at least the first episode. I subscribe to All Access anyway since getting rid of cable for the few shows my wife and I watch.
> 
> I just get the feeling that CBS at this point are taking the money and running. I just wonder if Netflix will file a law suit.
Click to expand...


What would Netflix sue for?

Even when it's not a prequel, if movies or shows take place in the same timeline but are made many years apart, they often look like they are from different times.  Watch the first Star Trek movie, then watch The Undiscovered Country.  Improvements in visual effects might lead you to believe they are from very different time periods.  And of course, the Star Trek reboot looks much more advanced in a lot of ways.

I don't know why Fuller wanted to make a show from close to, but before, TOS timeline.  I agree that it seems like a bit of an odd decision, just as I think Enterprise was an odd choice.  Star Trek can always do more stories either in the same time or in the future.  Going to the past is limiting.


----------



## Mr.Blonde

Montrovant said:


> What would Netflix sue for?



There was talk about sueing using a lemon law type of arrangement. Basically CBS knowingly sold them a bad product.



Montrovant said:


> I don't know why Fuller wanted to make a show from close to, but before, TOS timeline. I agree that it seems like a bit of an odd decision, just as I think Enterprise was an odd choice. Star Trek can always do more stories either in the same time or in the future. Going to the past is limiting.



I am not sure how much of Discovery is Fuller anymore


----------



## Windparadox

Billy_Kinetta said:


> *Will you watch?* I'll probably watch the opener out of curiosity but won't pay money to CBS to see the series.  The premise is not fresh beyond the lady Captain and XO.'Star Trek: Discovery' to Tackle Trump-Era Political Divide


`
Not a chance. More network/hollywood garbage.


----------



## Montrovant

Mr.Blonde said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would Netflix sue for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was talk about sueing using a lemon law type of arrangement. Basically CBS knowingly sold them a bad product.
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why Fuller wanted to make a show from close to, but before, TOS timeline. I agree that it seems like a bit of an odd decision, just as I think Enterprise was an odd choice. Star Trek can always do more stories either in the same time or in the future. Going to the past is limiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not sure how much of Discovery is Fuller anymore
Click to expand...


Yeah, but I'm pretty sure the time period was something from while Fuller was still in charge.


----------



## Synthaholic

WillMunny said:


> *The only time *the Oscars got it completely right was when they gave at least a record dozen awards to the most epic movie of all time, Lord of the Rings: Return of the King for 2003.


Yeah, except for when they got it right, giving all the awards to Silence Of The Lambs.  Or Unforgiven.  Or Titanic.  Or As Good As It Gets.  Or  . . . how many more do you need?


----------



## Synthaholic

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillMunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillMunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, from everything I've heard about ST: Discovery it will be every bit as clumsy, *SJW-harrassing the viewer* (other Star Trek let their diversity function as a casual, everyday thing) embarrassing and horribly dumbed down as Jar Jar Abrams horrid mockery of Star Trek movies.
> 
> 
> 
> You poor cuck.  Better find your safe space now before they're all gone!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Safe space?  You idiot, you don't even know the FUCKING DEFINITION of a "safe space", you horse's ass!  Explaining what I like or dislike about a certain entertainment IS NOT GETTING SCARED AND TRAUMATIZED!!!!  It's simply a matter of expressing an opinion, that's all, you poor, drooling vegetable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You obviously have a fear of Social Justice Warriors.  Just hide, like your gut tells you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are boring and silly.
Click to expand...

Well, at least you're not afraid of them like Will Munny.


----------



## Synthaholic

theHawk said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillMunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, from everything I've heard about ST: Discovery it will be every bit as clumsy, SJW-harrassing the viewer (other Star Trek let their diversity function as a casual, everyday thing) embarrassing and horribly dumbed down as Jar Jar Abrams horrid mockery of Star Trek movies.  I can't tell you how the hyperactive, jackhammer-in-the-brain, stupid 2009 cine-feces ended because I walked out during the last half hour.  I hated it so bad that I figured whatever I paid to get in, it was worth MORE to get out.  Not only is it the worst Star Trek I've ever seen, not only is it the worst movie I've ever seen, but I've NEVER seen a megabudget movie more incompetent on a technical level.  The lens flares, obnoxious set design lighting & cinematography, etc., etc.  J.J. Abrams Trek has zero redeeming qualities of any kind.  I haven't watched any newer Trek since that 2009 utter miscarriage of sci-fi.
> 
> My point being, everything points to Discovery as being in the same DELIBERATELY dumbed-down, obnoxious vein.  And has so many talentless idiots involved, NOTHING good can come from it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2009 Star Trek is the worst movie you have ever seen, you must have seen very few movies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 2009 reboot is a fantastic movie.  Karl Urban is a perfect Dr. McCoy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the reboots were ok movies, but they weren't good Star Trek movies.  I agree Karl Urban was a perfect McCoy, but the new Kirk was terrible.  All they did was make him a wild cowboy, if you watch the old show, young Kirk was very calculating and calm.  In the movies when he was much older he was more of a cowboy, but he wasn't like that when he was young.
> 
> JJ Abrams ruined the Star Trek franchise.  He turned it into a Michael Bay action movie in space using regurgitated Star Trek characters.  His TV show Lost was one of the worst sci-fi shows I ever sat through.  I knew he would ruin Star Wars as well and he sure as hell did, that movie was a flaming pile of garbage.
Click to expand...

I don't agree about Chris Pine.  I think he's a fine Kirk.  He's just not an obviously fantastic choice, like Karl Urban and Zachary Quinto.  And John Cho is a good Sulu, even though he's Korean, not Japanese.  I'm not totally sold on Simon Pegg as Montgomery Scott.  He's okay, but I keep seeing Benjy from the 1Mission:Impossible series.

The problem is that the studios demand action sequences.  The old cool, more thoughtful Kirk is a waste of screen time that could be used for a phasor battle.


----------



## Montrovant

Synthaholic said:


> WillMunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The only time *the Oscars got it completely right was when they gave at least a record dozen awards to the most epic movie of all time, Lord of the Rings: Return of the King for 2003.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, except for when they got it right, giving all the awards to Silence Of The Lambs.  Or Unforgiven.  Or Titanic.  Or As Good As It Gets.  Or  . . . how many more do you need?  View attachment 150969
Click to expand...


Titanic was an overrated mess.  As Good As It Gets was good, but just good, far from great.  I'd have picked Good Will Hunting over As Good As It Gets, and certainly over Titanic.  Unforgiven is also overrated, but less so than Titanic; Unforgiven is a good movie, but too often people seem to think it is some sort of masterpiece.  Of course, the only other movie nominated for best picture in 93 that I watched was A Few Good Men, and I hardly even remember that, so Unforgiven may have been the best of the choices.  Silence of the Lambs was excellent, I'll certainly agree with that movie deserving awards.


----------



## theHawk

Synthaholic said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillMunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, from everything I've heard about ST: Discovery it will be every bit as clumsy, SJW-harrassing the viewer (other Star Trek let their diversity function as a casual, everyday thing) embarrassing and horribly dumbed down as Jar Jar Abrams horrid mockery of Star Trek movies.  I can't tell you how the hyperactive, jackhammer-in-the-brain, stupid 2009 cine-feces ended because I walked out during the last half hour.  I hated it so bad that I figured whatever I paid to get in, it was worth MORE to get out.  Not only is it the worst Star Trek I've ever seen, not only is it the worst movie I've ever seen, but I've NEVER seen a megabudget movie more incompetent on a technical level.  The lens flares, obnoxious set design lighting & cinematography, etc., etc.  J.J. Abrams Trek has zero redeeming qualities of any kind.  I haven't watched any newer Trek since that 2009 utter miscarriage of sci-fi.
> 
> My point being, everything points to Discovery as being in the same DELIBERATELY dumbed-down, obnoxious vein.  And has so many talentless idiots involved, NOTHING good can come from it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2009 Star Trek is the worst movie you have ever seen, you must have seen very few movies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 2009 reboot is a fantastic movie.  Karl Urban is a perfect Dr. McCoy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the reboots were ok movies, but they weren't good Star Trek movies.  I agree Karl Urban was a perfect McCoy, but the new Kirk was terrible.  All they did was make him a wild cowboy, if you watch the old show, young Kirk was very calculating and calm.  In the movies when he was much older he was more of a cowboy, but he wasn't like that when he was young.
> 
> JJ Abrams ruined the Star Trek franchise.  He turned it into a Michael Bay action movie in space using regurgitated Star Trek characters.  His TV show Lost was one of the worst sci-fi shows I ever sat through.  I knew he would ruin Star Wars as well and he sure as hell did, that movie was a flaming pile of garbage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't agree about Chris Pine.  I think he's a fine Kirk.  He's just not an obviously fantastic choice, like Karl Urban and Zachary Quinto.  And John Cho is a good Sulu, even though he's Korean, not Japanese.  I'm not totally sold on Simon Pegg as Montgomery Scott.  He's okay, but I keep seeing Benjy from the 1Mission:Impossible series.
> 
> The problem is that the studios demand action sequences.  The old cool, more thoughtful Kirk is a waste of screen time that could be used for a phasor battle.
Click to expand...


Yup, this is the Michael Bay era, no critical thinking or interesting plot allowed.  Movies must adhere to the standard recipe to appease the low IQ masses: lots of CGI, over the top action sequences, and a diverse cast.


----------



## JoeB131

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Will you watch?
> 
> I'll probably watch the opener out of curiosity but won't pay money to CBS to see the series. The premise is not fresh beyond the lady Captain and XO.



Probably not, but for different reasons. 

First and foremost, here we have Viacom trying to milk money out of Trekkies.  they know some Trekkies will pay for CBS on demand to watch this show.  They could do just as well putting a Trek show on the CW, where all the nerds are already hanging out. 

Second, it looks like they are taking another big whizzz on continuity.


----------



## JoeB131

WillMunny said:


> I do agree that the original series was the least "libtarded" and most intellectually reasonable, least politically partisan, no question of that.



Um, no. You are just too young to remember that back then, the Original Series WAS very progressive and risk taking. 

At a time when black folks were being hosed and attacked by dogs for merely trying to exercise their right to vote, you had a character who was a black woman who was an officer!  

And the episode with the two-toned aliens fighting to the death?  That was a direct commentary on a time when we had race riots going on.


----------



## Synthaholic

theHawk said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillMunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, from everything I've heard about ST: Discovery it will be every bit as clumsy, SJW-harrassing the viewer (other Star Trek let their diversity function as a casual, everyday thing) embarrassing and horribly dumbed down as Jar Jar Abrams horrid mockery of Star Trek movies.  I can't tell you how the hyperactive, jackhammer-in-the-brain, stupid 2009 cine-feces ended because I walked out during the last half hour.  I hated it so bad that I figured whatever I paid to get in, it was worth MORE to get out.  Not only is it the worst Star Trek I've ever seen, not only is it the worst movie I've ever seen, but I've NEVER seen a megabudget movie more incompetent on a technical level.  The lens flares, obnoxious set design lighting & cinematography, etc., etc.  J.J. Abrams Trek has zero redeeming qualities of any kind.  I haven't watched any newer Trek since that 2009 utter miscarriage of sci-fi.
> 
> My point being, everything points to Discovery as being in the same DELIBERATELY dumbed-down, obnoxious vein.  And has so many talentless idiots involved, NOTHING good can come from it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2009 Star Trek is the worst movie you have ever seen, you must have seen very few movies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 2009 reboot is a fantastic movie.  Karl Urban is a perfect Dr. McCoy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the reboots were ok movies, but they weren't good Star Trek movies.  I agree Karl Urban was a perfect McCoy, but the new Kirk was terrible.  All they did was make him a wild cowboy, if you watch the old show, young Kirk was very calculating and calm.  In the movies when he was much older he was more of a cowboy, but he wasn't like that when he was young.
> 
> JJ Abrams ruined the Star Trek franchise.  He turned it into a Michael Bay action movie in space using regurgitated Star Trek characters.  His TV show Lost was one of the worst sci-fi shows I ever sat through.  I knew he would ruin Star Wars as well and he sure as hell did, that movie was a flaming pile of garbage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't agree about Chris Pine.  I think he's a fine Kirk.  He's just not an obviously fantastic choice, like Karl Urban and Zachary Quinto.  And John Cho is a good Sulu, even though he's Korean, not Japanese.  I'm not totally sold on Simon Pegg as Montgomery Scott.  He's okay, but I keep seeing Benjy from the 1Mission:Impossible series.
> 
> The problem is that the studios demand action sequences.  The old cool, more thoughtful Kirk is a waste of screen time that could be used for a phasor battle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, this is the Michael Bay era, no critical thinking or interesting plot allowed.  Movies must adhere to the standard recipe to appease the low IQ masses: lots of CGI, over the top action sequences, and a diverse cast.
Click to expand...

Not only the Michael Bay era, more importantly the Overseas Era.  A lot of these action movies make a ton of money overseas, so complicated dialogue with a Western, or specifically U.S. sensibility is frowned upon.  Make it translate into any culture.  Guns and explosions do that.


----------



## Synthaholic

JoeB131 said:


> And the episode with the two-toned aliens fighting to the death? That was a direct commentary on a time when we had race riots going on.


Frank Gorshin.  I always liked him.  He was a great Riddler.


----------



## WillMunny

JoeB131 said:


> WillMunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do agree that the original series was the least "libtarded" and most intellectually reasonable, least politically partisan, no question of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no. You are just too young to remember that back then, the Original Series WAS very progressive and risk taking.
> 
> At a time when black folks were being hosed and attacked by dogs for merely trying to exercise their right to vote, you had a character who was a black woman who was an officer!
> 
> And the episode with the two-toned aliens fighting to the death?  That was a direct commentary on a time when we had race riots going on.
Click to expand...


Wrong, previous series were classical, moderate liberalism.  As opposed to today's hateful, raging, chip-on-shoulder, American-hating, white-hating, violent liberal hatemongering and delusional, destructive behavior we see today.  Star Trek's liberalism used a light touch; you modern liberals use a sledgehammer.


----------



## boedicca

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Will you watch?
> 
> I'll probably watch the opener out of curiosity but won't pay money to CBS to see the series.  The premise is not fresh beyond the lady Captain and XO.
> 
> 'Star Trek: Discovery' to Tackle Trump-Era Political Divide




I'd rather stab myself in the eye with a rusty icepick.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Synthaholic said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the episode with the two-toned aliens fighting to the death? That was a direct commentary on a time when we had race riots going on.
> 
> 
> 
> Frank Gorshin.  I always liked him.  He was a great Riddler.
Click to expand...


I didn't like him.  He was white on the left side.


----------



## JoeB131

WillMunny said:


> Wrong, previous series were classical, moderate liberalism. As opposed to today's hateful, raging, chip-on-shoulder, American-hating, white-hating, violent liberal hatemongering and delusional, destructive behavior we see today. Star Trek's liberalism used a light touch; you modern liberals use a sledgehammer.



Well, that's only because Conservatives have gotten dumber.  You've gone from the intellect of a Nixon to the stupidity of a Trump.


----------



## JoeB131

Okay, having just watched this abortion.  

Yes, this was awful.  It actually made the Motion Picture look fast paced. 

Not to mention you can't understand a word Michelle Yoeh is saying half the time. (I know that she isn't going to be a series regular, so there's that.)


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Well, watched Discovery.  It was gawd-awful.


----------



## Mr.Blonde

All I can say is after watching both episodes: I didn't hate it as much as I thought I would. Which isn't saying much because I thought I was going to be angry after watching it. 

I think it would have helped my enjoyment more if they tried to make it look like it took place in the Prime Universe and not the Abram's Universe.


----------



## longknife

I watched it and confirmed my decision not to pay one red cent to view another. It stunk and was expectedly anti-Trump.


----------



## Desperado

Not sure but it doesn't look good.  Think they may have gone to the well once too many times,  It would have been better if they remade FireFly or BattleStar.


----------



## Synthaholic

boedicca said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will you watch?
> 
> I'll probably watch the opener out of curiosity but won't pay money to CBS to see the series.  The premise is not fresh beyond the lady Captain and XO.
> 
> 'Star Trek: Discovery' to Tackle Trump-Era Political Divide
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd rather stab myself in the eye with a rusty icepick.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'd rather you do that, too.


----------



## Synthaholic

I watched it and I liked it.


----------



## Synthaholic

Did anyone notice that Sarek was played by the guy who played Mayor Theo Galavan on 'Gotham'?


----------



## BulletProof

The new series sucks.  It's suppose to take place before ST:TOS, but the ship looks like a better fit for a much later time period.  All in all, the show pays little attention to the Star Trek canon.  Also, the show has too much visual flash and confusion, courtesy of cheap CGI.  

There are no white males in major roles.  There's a brief appearance of a white male high-ranking officer.  He is a subtly dumb racist who gets killed.  A white male also has a very minor role on the bridge.  

I wonder who the homosexual will turn out to be.  It's like a game of Where's Waldo.


----------



## Harry Dresden

the show kinda sucked for many reasons......the early federation crews did not have many non-humans on board in that era.....they did not have the holographic technology to communicate with HQ like they showed.......Kirk in his first 5 year mission had no idea what the Real Klingons looked like,but yet Archer and these people knew.....and speaking of the Klingons.. why the fuck did they butcher the Klingons like that?.....


----------



## toobfreak

BulletProof said:


> The new series sucks.  It's suppose to take place before ST:TOS, but the ship looks like a better fit for a much later time period.  All in all, the show pays little attention to the Star Trek canon.  Also, the show has too much visual flash and confusion, courtesy of cheap CGI.
> 
> There are no white males in major roles.  There's a brief appearance of a white male high-ranking officer.  He is a subtly dumb racist who gets killed.  A white male also has a very minor role on the bridge.
> 
> I wonder who the homosexual will turn out to be.  It's like a game of Where's Waldo.



Agreed.

It wasn’t any fix for me.  I value quality over newness, and fell apart this episode for several obvious reasons:

*A).  It was boring as snot.*  There are no actors of any great quality or significance whatsoever.  Not even a minor star.  The Cage and all the other pilots for other series were 10X better!  Better written, more interesting.  Had Gene presented this in 1964, ST never would have even gotten off the ground.  There was literally nothing of interest until the last 5 minutes! Before that, the scene where the Enterprise came down out of the clouds was pretty good.  Not a great, but still a pretty interesting, militant starship design.

*B).* Watching the episode, unless I blinked, *it never let on to the viewer where in time this was! * In the past of ST:TOS, in the future, no star date or anything.  The main but vague indicator was a young Sarek who doesn't look like Sarek talking to a child Spock who appeared black.  What, were there even 3 or 4 white people in the entire story line?  Some that were barely had a scene.  The whole thing came off as anti-white, anti-male.

*C).  It seemed to present a very PC universe with a veiled political message *aimed at a very young audience rather than those who grew up with Star Trek.

*D). * The starship now is some sort of Asian name, apparently suiting the Asian captain who isn't even the star of the show?  The 1st office is the star?  As such, not a whole lot of identifiers to attract ST’s main audience but to draw in a new one.

*E).  I don’t like being manipulated* and the entire episode was obviously written as just a teaser to the greater TV audience to reel people in the last few minutes like little fish as a “to-be-continued-elsewhere” episode so that you would WANT to jump over and sign up to CBS Direct to see what happens next.  Apparently CBS is after maximizing its profits by circumventing the entire TV network medium and go straight to the internet, the last way I want to watch TV.

*F).  Produced by Gene’s son,* the kid that didn’t even like his father and was out getting stoned in the 60’s with zero interest in what his dad did or had created, he grew up a bit too late to value and understand Star Trek until his dad was gone.  Now in part honor to his father and part opportunity to make a buck, he has lent his name to the show, unfortunately, ol’ Eugene isn’t much of a TV writer/producer and apparently missed what his dad’s vision really had been for the show, and completely misses all the things that his Father meant for Star Trek to be!  Discovery has a lot of the FORM of Star Trek, but little of the SUBSTANCE.  This never would have been produced under Gene.

*G).  If this is in the past, both the bridge and display consoles use an entirely unrealistic technology. * This ship gives the impression of a bridge at least 4X the size of the original Enterprise’s!

*H).  In ST:TOS day, you were at least in your late 30’s or 40's before having the training and experience to run a star ship.*  Kirk, in his early 30's was the youngest Captain there had ever been.  Now apparently they are doing it at the age of an ensign in their early 20’s barely out of high school.

All in all, not a whole lot to interest me.  I actually thought of turning it off about a quarter / third of the way into it!  The show was FAR LESS GOOD than I had thought it would be:  dry, humorless, unimaginative.  It was a failure at every level to little more than eye candy set in a sci-fi format with a few Star Trek themes.  The most interesting aspects were plot vehicles dug up from the original series.  No great sci-fi writers anymore, it was poor, shallow fiction mainly borrowing on old themes and ideas for structure.  I would only watch it a few more times just to see what happens and to see if it ever actually develops to an interesting, better level.  Sooner or later, it will eventually come out on TV or somewhere that I can see without being a ‘Direct’ member. I can wait for that.  As it stands, I can only hope that the vast majority of potential viewers DO NOT sign up to Direct so that CBS can look at last night’s viewership and wonder where they all went!  That and the general structure of the show are largely a failure, as is “Eugene Enterprises.”  Star Trek is supposed to be about GOOD science fiction with a strong message;  this was neither.


----------



## Synthaholic

BulletProof said:


> There are no white males in major roles.


And this concerns you . . . why?


----------



## Synthaholic

Boy, what a bunch of whiny snowflakes.


----------



## JoeB131

longknife said:


> I watched it and confirmed my decision not to pay one red cent to view another. It stunk and was expectedly anti-Trump.



I think it was kind of a stretch to see an "anti-Trump" message in there. So the Klingons wanted to unify their shattered empire.  It wasn't like they were all wearing red hats that said, "Make Q'onoS Great Again" 

Ah, remember the good old days when the Klingons were a clumsy metaphor for the USSR?  

but you are right. Definitely not worth watching.


----------



## JoeB131

toobfreak said:


> *A). It was boring as snot.*



Agreed



toobfreak said:


> *B).* Watching the episode, unless I blinked, *it never let on to the viewer where in time this was! *



I think they made this clear it takes place around 2250, which is before TOS and after Enterprise.  



toobfreak said:


> *C). It seemed to present a very PC universe with a veiled political message *aimed at a very young audience rather than those who grew up with Star Trek.



Meh, I think this is a case of you seeing something you want to see there. 

I should also point out that the purpose here would be to introduce Trek to a new audience.  The original Trek Audience is old and we don't buy stuff. 



toobfreak said:


> *E). I don’t like being manipulated* and the entire episode was obviously written as just a teaser to the greater TV audience to reel people in the last few minutes like little fish as a “to-be-continued-elsewhere” episode so that you would WANT to jump over and sign up to CBS Direct to see what happens next.



Agreed, this was very slimy on the part of CBS/Viacom. They could have produced this show for CW and gotten a respectable audience, but they are trying to milk Trek fans for more money. 



toobfreak said:


> *F). Produced by Gene’s son,* the kid that didn’t even like his father and was out getting stoned in the 60’s with zero interest in what his dad did or had created



Meh, I can't blame Roddenberry's kid for that when Dad was just as bad about that sort of thing. This "Roddenberry as a visionary" crap was really a lot of self-promotion. 



toobfreak said:


> G). If this is in the past, both the bridge and display consoles use an entirely unrealistic technology.



Maybe, but I don't think folks would accept the cardboard sets of the OS today. 



toobfreak said:


> *H). In ST:TOS day, you were at least in your late 30’s or 40's before having the training and experience to run a star ship.*



except Michelle Yoeh is 55, so I don't have a problem with this. Good Lord, she's the same age I am?  

Yeah, I know, it's really hard to tell how old Asian women are.


----------



## toobfreak

JoeB131 said:


> [I think they made this clear it takes place around 2250, which is before TOS and after Enterprise.



Yeah, I probably missed it squirming in my seat as I thought how I had looked forward to this show all week and it turned out to be unbelievably dull.  I mean, they spent a quarter of the show wandering in the desert (I missed the reason why) scrawling out a PERFECT star trek logo in the sand while determining the arrival of a storm down to the second, which later turned out to be wrong?  And why did the ship have to come down so low?  No transporters, steamed up windows or what?  I saved it on my DVR and will watch it again for the things I missed as I was mainly busy studying the production of the show (I have studied television production for decades) rather than listening to the lines.



toobfreak said:


> *C). It seemed to present a very PC universe with a veiled political message *aimed at a very young audience rather than those who grew up with Star Trek.





> Meh, I think this is a case of you seeing something you want to see there.



I'm not talking about any Trump parallels, I agree that I didn't see that, I was speaking more of the choices for gender and race;  it seemed to closely parallel the world that schools teach these days, and this show just a reaffirmation of the same themes.  There were hardly any whites!  And few men in minor and fleeting roles.  I guess CBS has forgotten that Sci-Fi is mainly a venue for guys.



> I should also point out that the purpose here would be to introduce Trek to a new audience.  The original Trek Audience is old and we don't buy stuff.



Are you kidding?  I'm a master model builder and have over $400 invested in parts alone with more to buy just for a model of the Enterprise, and am looking at buying a couple hundred dollars more worth of books (mainly on the original series).



> Meh, I can't blame Roddenberry's kid for that when Dad was just as bad about that sort of thing. This "Roddenberry as a visionary" crap was really a lot of self-promotion.



I don't think so.  Gene was an LA cop who worked his way into TV writing and wrote and produced many episodes and shows before Star Trek, with Star Trek being a revolution in television and science fiction with a very special message for the future far ahead of its time that has endeared the show to fans for over half a century.



> Maybe, but I don't think folks would accept the cardboard sets of the OS today.



No, but it makes the original Enterprise Bridge look a far step back in engineering.  Part of the problem with them trying to go back in time.  They would be better to continue the story forward in time, but that is a LOT harder to do on many levels.



> except Michelle Yoeh is 55, so I don't have a problem with this. Good Lord, she's the same age I am? Yeah, I know, it's really hard to tell how old Asian women are.



You mean Tan Sri Dato' Seri Michelle Yeoh Choo-Kheng?  ;^)  I never heard of her, don't know where they found her and would have never guessed she was 55.  She's from Malaysia and the set was too dark to make out much of her other than she was apparently "asian."  I saw no endearing quality of anyone on the bridge that would make me want to continue watching the show.


----------



## BulletProof

JoeB131 said:


> I think it was kind of a stretch to see an "anti-Trump" message in there. So the Klingons wanted to unify their shattered empire.  It wasn't like they were all wearing red hats that said, "Make Q'onoS Great Again"



You missed the whole speech by the Klingon cult leader about racial purity, etc.?  In pre-Trump Trek, Klingons were only a warrior race, not a racist race (other than thinking other races were soft).

And, did you miss the theme about making Q'onoS Great Again, unifying the empire, even if there weren't red hats involved?


----------



## JoeB131

toobfreak said:


> You mean Tan Sri Dato' Seri Michelle Yeoh Choo-Kheng?  ;^) I never heard of her, don't know where they found her and would have never guessed she was 55. She's from Malaysia and the set was too dark to make out much of her other than she was apparently "asian." I saw no endearing quality of anyone on the bridge that would make me want to continue watching the show.



Neither did I.  

Usually, they spend most of a first episode introducing the characters, which really wasn't done here.  Later episodes are going to have gay character introduced, which I know will drive the wingnuts into a tizzy. 

They aren't even going to get around to introducing the ship for a while.


----------



## BulletProof

toobfreak said:


> I saw no endearing quality of anyone on the bridge that would make me want to continue watching the show.



That's a big problem with the show.  I don't see many Trek fans being eager to follow the adventures of Michael Burnham (the main character, a woman with a man's name).  Political Correctness aside, she's not very likable or compelling.  I'm sure her character will be tweaked to make her more likable, but they'll never make her more compelling.


----------



## toobfreak

BulletProof said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw no endearing quality of anyone on the bridge that would make me want to continue watching the show.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a big problem with the show.  I don't see many Trek fans being eager to follow the adventures of Michael Burnham (the main character, a woman with a man's name).  Political Correctness aside, she's not very likable or compelling.  I'm sure her character will be tweaked to make her more likable, but they'll never make her more compelling.
Click to expand...



The missing magic is Gene Roddenberry's keen talent for building chemistry and camaraderie between key characters.  It makes the characters real.  TOS and TNG had it in spades.  Not so much for DS9, Voyager and Enterprise, far worse for Discovery.


----------



## Montrovant

I thought the show was pretty good.  While the main character was too much a copy of Spock, that might work for a younger audience that isn't as familiar with Spock.  She has the similar Vulcan-but-struggles-with-emotion vibe, but instead of actually being Vulcan she was raised by them.

Bryan Fuller has never made an action-packed show.  Wonderfalls, Dead Like Me, and Pushing Daisies were all quirky comedies, and Hannibal was a slow, tense drama/thriller.  I wasn't expecting this show to be full of action, yet it had plenty.  Calling it boring because of the pacing sounds like a person who should watch the reboot movies.  

I hate how changeable the Klingon species has been over the course of the various series.  

There was too much spoken Klingon with subtitles throughout.  I'm not a big fan of subtitles, it forces a person to change and narrow focus from the entire show to the words, I think it was over used.

The court scene at the end was entirely overdone, with the lighting hiding the faces of the judges, and backlighting Burnham.  I actually expected it to be a dream sequence.

Those phasers looked pretty old-school, I liked that.  The out-of-date transporter was a nice touch.  There are still problems with the way current visual technology makes the show look more hi-tech, but I think they did a decent job of trying to give it a time-period correct feel.

I'm not willing to pay the monthly fee for CBS All Access to watch this show.  However, if I have an opportunity to watch it; if someone I know gets All Access, or if it comes out on Netflix or something like that eventually, or someone gets the DVD of the season, I will certainly watch it.  This is the first time since TNG I've felt like a Trek show might be worth watching more than the first episode, but it didn't wow me so much I'd pay a monthly fee for it.


----------



## Synthaholic

I'm baffled by some of these responses.  I didn't find it boring or slow.

Funny how in this thread is the opinion that the movie reboot is all space cowboy action with no contemplation, and there's also the opinion that the new show is all thought, no action.


----------



## JoeB131

Synthaholic said:


> I'm baffled by some of these responses. I didn't find it boring or slow.
> 
> Funny how in this thread is the opinion that the movie reboot is all space cowboy action with no contemplation, and there's also the opinion that the new show is all thought, no action.



I don't think the show had a lot of thought. My problem with it was the pacing. 

Also, on principle, I really don't like what CBS is doing with this show. "Here's half a story. Pay us a bunch of money if you want to see the rest of it! "


----------



## Montrovant

JoeB131 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm baffled by some of these responses. I didn't find it boring or slow.
> 
> Funny how in this thread is the opinion that the movie reboot is all space cowboy action with no contemplation, and there's also the opinion that the new show is all thought, no action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the show had a lot of thought. My problem with it was the pacing.
> 
> Also, on principle, I really don't like what CBS is doing with this show. "Here's half a story. Pay us a bunch of money if you want to see the rest of it! "
Click to expand...


I disagree about the pacing, but I agree with the attempt to get people to pay for All Access.  This show isn't enough to get me to buy their subscription.


----------



## Harry Dresden

JoeB131 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm baffled by some of these responses. I didn't find it boring or slow.
> 
> Funny how in this thread is the opinion that the movie reboot is all space cowboy action with no contemplation, and there's also the opinion that the new show is all thought, no action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the show had a lot of thought. My problem with it was the pacing.
> 
> Also, on principle, I really don't like what CBS is doing with this show. "Here's half a story. Pay us a bunch of money if you want to see the rest of it! "
Click to expand...

that might just bite them in the ass.....same with making the Doctor a woman....


----------



## Synthaholic

Harry Dresden said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm baffled by some of these responses. I didn't find it boring or slow.
> 
> Funny how in this thread is the opinion that the movie reboot is all space cowboy action with no contemplation, and there's also the opinion that the new show is all thought, no action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the show had a lot of thought. My problem with it was the pacing.
> 
> Also, on principle, I really don't like what CBS is doing with this show. "Here's half a story. Pay us a bunch of money if you want to see the rest of it! "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that might just bite them in the ass.....same with making the Doctor a woman....
Click to expand...

I like having a woman Doctor Who.

But I've never watched the show.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Synthaholic said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm baffled by some of these responses. I didn't find it boring or slow.
> 
> Funny how in this thread is the opinion that the movie reboot is all space cowboy action with no contemplation, and there's also the opinion that the new show is all thought, no action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the show had a lot of thought. My problem with it was the pacing.
> 
> Also, on principle, I really don't like what CBS is doing with this show. "Here's half a story. Pay us a bunch of money if you want to see the rest of it! "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that might just bite them in the ass.....same with making the Doctor a woman....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like having a woman Doctor Who.
> 
> But I've never watched the show.
Click to expand...

then how would you know?.....would you like to be a man trapped in a womans body?...maybe you shouldnt answer that....lol...


----------



## BulletProof

Synthaholic said:


> I like having a woman Doctor Who.
> 
> But I've never watched the show.



Doctor Who is a man, a non-effeminate man.  This coming season they're literally giving this character a sex change.  And, how does that work?  A woman actor acting like a man?  Or, does having a vag magically change a man's pattern of conduct into that of woman?  It's stupid, either way they go.

Political Correctness, the pursuit of perversion, is the father of stupidity.  And, back to the new Star Trek where we have small women living soft lives overpowering large warriors.  And, they handle math and physics like they have a man's brain.  Ironically, Political Correctness is having women function as men.  They should give them beards.


----------



## JoeB131

Harry Dresden said:


> that might just bite them in the ass.....same with making the Doctor a woman....



Again, I think DW has bigger problems right now than the next one being a woman.  If anything, it'll probably get an initial ratings boost for people tuning in to what is going on. 

The trick is to make the stories interesting enough to where people keep watching.


----------



## JoeB131

BulletProof said:


> Doctor Who is a man, a non-effeminate man.



Obviously, you've forgotten Colin Baker's Sixth Doctor...



BulletProof said:


> This coming season they're literally giving this character a sex change. And, how does that work? A woman actor acting like a man? Or, does having a vag magically change a man's pattern of conduct into that of woman? It's stupid, either way they go.



Um, they've changed the actor playing the Doctor 12 times previously, and each actor had a different personality than the one that preceded him.  Come on, you'll accept a guy who can change his appearance travelling around in a magic phone box, but you turn him into a woman and you freak out? 

The thing is, they've already established that members of the Doctor's race can change genders when they regenerate. The Doctor's nemesis the Master changed into a woman three seasons ago, and it was actually pretty well done.  



BulletProof said:


> Political Correctness, the pursuit of perversion, is the father of stupidity. And, back to the new Star Trek where we have small women living soft lives overpowering large warriors. And, they handle math and physics like they have a man's brain. Ironically, Political Correctness is having women function as men. They should give them beards.



Um, Star Trek has been pretty "Politically Correct" since the 1960's. You know like with black and Asians serving on the crew as equals to the white people.  I know that's a crazy idea to someone like you.


----------



## BulletProof

JoeB131 said:


> The Doctor's nemesis the Master changed into a woman three seasons ago, and it was actually pretty well done.



Faggot, that was bad enough.  But, other than the "back story" of her being the master, she might as well have been a completely different character.  The female Doctor Who won't be passable as a completely different character.  



> Um, Star Trek has been pretty "Politically Correct" since the 1960's. You know like with black and Asians serving on the crew as equals to the white people.  I know that's a crazy idea to someone like you.



Yeah, an Asian as a fellow crew member is the same thing as a 110lb nerd woman overpowering warriors three times her size.  Not!


----------



## JoeB131

BulletProof said:


> Faggot, that was bad enough. But, other than the "back story" of her being the master, she might as well have been a completely different character. The female Doctor Who won't be passable as a completely different character.



Um, isn't it a completely different character every time he or she regenerates?  Isn't that kind of the point?  



BulletProof said:


> Yeah, an Asian as a fellow crew member is the same thing as a 110lb nerd woman overpowering warriors three times her size. Not!



Well, first, I only watched the first episode, so if you are talking about her beating the guy in Zero Gravity, that's not such a big deal. If you are talking about something that happens in a later episode, I can't address that.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

impuretrash said:


> They hired that personality-less chick who can't act from the walking dead to play the captain. It's gonna be awful.


You're username suits you.

She's fantastic


----------



## deanrd

deanrd said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will you watch?
> 
> I'll probably watch the opener out of curiosity but won't pay money to CBS to see the series.  The premise is not fresh beyond the lady Captain and XO.
> 
> 'Star Trek: Discovery' to Tackle Trump-Era Political Divide
> 
> 
> 
> The Federation is a coalition organization filled with diversity.
> 
> The Klingons are racist.  They are like Republicans with science.  Only we know, Republicans don't believe in science.
> 
> The majority of Republicans say colleges are bad for America (yes, really)
Click to expand...

Wow, I forgot I said that.  Sometimes I forget how well I understand the GOP.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

deanrd said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will you watch?
> 
> I'll probably watch the opener out of curiosity but won't pay money to CBS to see the series.  The premise is not fresh beyond the lady Captain and XO.
> 
> 'Star Trek: Discovery' to Tackle Trump-Era Political Divide
> 
> 
> 
> The Federation is a coalition organization filled with diversity.
> 
> The Klingons are racist.  They are like Republicans with science.  Only we know, Republicans don't believe in science.
> 
> The majority of Republicans say colleges are bad for America (yes, really)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, I forgot I said that.  Sometimes I forget how well I understand the GOP.
Click to expand...

You are such a fucking paranoid pussy. You see evil republicans everywhere you look.

IT'S A FUCKING MAKE BELIEVE TV SHOW

It's like I have to explain this shit to my grandkids.


----------



## Montrovant

Grampa Murked U said:


> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> They hired that personality-less chick who can't act from the walking dead to play the captain. It's gonna be awful.
> 
> 
> 
> You're username suits you.
> 
> She's fantastic
Click to expand...


She's not the captain.  She's first officer.  And it's Sonequa Martin-Green.


----------



## IsaacNewton

Is the new Star Trek only on the CBS web site? It isn't airing every week on normal television?


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

IsaacNewton said:


> Is the new Star Trek only on the CBS web site? It isn't airing every week on normal television?



No.  You must pay and pay.


----------



## IsaacNewton

Billy_Kinetta said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the new Star Trek only on the CBS web site? It isn't airing every week on normal television?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  You must pay and pay.
Click to expand...


What the hell is that. I won't be watching which is too bad. The Orville is terrible. The stories aren't bad but the acting by McFarlane just doesn't cut it and the cast of characters is not compelling. The whole thing seems rather milk-toast.


----------



## Montrovant

IsaacNewton said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the new Star Trek only on the CBS web site? It isn't airing every week on normal television?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  You must pay and pay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell is that. I won't be watching which is too bad. The Orville is terrible. The stories aren't bad but the acting by McFarlane just doesn't cut it and the cast of characters is not compelling. The whole thing seems rather milk-toast.
Click to expand...


That seems to be the general consensus.  Either people didn't like the Discovery premier and won't bother watching because of that, or they did like it, but won't bother watching because of the paywall.

CBS doesn't  have enough programming I really want to see for me to pay for it separately.


----------



## JoeB131

IsaacNewton said:


> What the hell is that. I won't be watching which is too bad. The Orville is terrible. The stories aren't bad but the acting by McFarlane just doesn't cut it and the cast of characters is not compelling. The whole thing seems rather milk-toast.



I think the problem with _The Orville_ is that it doesn't know if it wants to be a space drama or a comedy.  It's failing at both by being just plain mediocre.  The jokes aren't that funny, and the stories are pretty much rehashed Star Trek Voyager.


----------

