www.ditl.org

What pisses me off is this will fail for the same reason ENT did, then we will have no trek for 10+ years again, and they will say its our fault for not supporting it. Rather than their fault for fucking it up.

Teaos wrote:What pisses me off is this will fail for the same reason ENT did, then we will have no trek for 10+ years again, and they will say its our fault for not supporting it. Rather than their fault for fucking it up.

You didn't like some of the later seasons of Enterprise?

DSG2k wrote: The STD producers can call it Prime for whatever legal reasons they wish, what with the Paramount/CBS Trek-sharing arrangement, but it is obviously STINO: The Previous JJeneration and an appeal to the JJ-Trek audience. To paraphrase the Great Bird, it may be good, but it isn't Star Trek.

Out of curiosity, what did he say that about?

Anyway we'll have to see, but while movies you have to throw what they make out there and hope the (generally younger) audience shows up, streaming could be a different demographic. Typically the internet is treated as a young person's thing, but I expect the Trek watching demographic adapted better than most. And I expect young Trekkies that will actually pay for a subscription services won't be the basest examples of their generation.

My points is that, aside from the first few episodes, a series isn't just throwing it out there. They're getting feedback. Being a streaming thing, the show may be able to be much more responsive. Even on regular TV in the past they would adjust the shows based on feedback they were getting.

sunnyside wrote:

Teaos wrote:What pisses me off is this will fail for the same reason ENT did, then we will have no trek for 10+ years again, and they will say its our fault for not supporting it. Rather than their fault for fucking it up.

You didn't like some of the later seasons of Enterprise?

Yeah I did, but by that point it was to late to save the show and the seed of the show was rotten from the start.

I don't think the show will be bad. From the trailer, they are definitely putting money into this thing. It will mess with the continuity we grew up with, and looks very Abramsverse with the lens flares but surprisingly won't be the Abramsverse. I suppose the STD guys just want to tap into that wider audience. There are some elements of the Star Trek pedigree involved. Joe Menosky is a writer for the show. Nicholas Meyer is a consulting producer. Alex Kutzman is a producer.

The thing I really want is to return to in Star Trek is "to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before." With these kinds of production values, I would love to see Trek visiting thriving civilizations. Check out busy, lively, alien marketplaces, and it will look like a real environment, rather than a small set. The show is called Discovery, so I hope there will be some discoveries to be made besides the self-discovery as implied with the Michael Burnham character.

sunnyside wrote:

Graham Kennedy wrote: I don't even know if I will watch it at all.

At first I just sort of read that and went on...then it hit me that this is the webmaster saying that.

I suppose we'll see just how good or bad it is, and maybe you'll follow good reviews to CBS.

But it's a little sad to think of the site going out to pasture.

We're getting into adding stuff from the novels lately. Well over a hundred items have been added to the site in the last few weeks - and that's just from a couple of books. There are hundreds of books out there.

So call me dumb, but I thought the whole "Michael Burnham" thing was a misprint or something. The actual name of the female main character is "Michael"? Why have they given her a guy's name?

Graham Kennedy wrote:So call me dumb, but I thought the whole "Michael Burnham" thing was a misprint or something. The actual name of the female main character is "Michael"? Why have they given her a guy's name?

To paraphrase, in the future why does it matter?



(in honest reply from what I've seen online apparently that's a Bryan Fuller thing. Female characters with male/male-sounding names.

Hurm. I believe there have been some comments about the new Trek pushing some social boundaries.

Having a transgender character would qualify, though I doubt that's the deal.

I don't suppose it matters as such, I just find it weird.

I can't help but picture if Jean-Luc Picard had been called Susan Picard. Because why not? It just makes me chuckle.

Graham Kennedy wrote:I don't suppose it matters as such, I just find it weird.

I can't help but picture if Jean-Luc Picard had been called Susan Picard. Because why not? It just makes me chuckle.

I thought TNG was pushing the social boundaries when they gave a Frenchman a British accent. At the time, it was unthinkable.

Nutso wrote:

Graham Kennedy wrote:I don't suppose it matters as such, I just find it weird.

I can't help but picture if Jean-Luc Picard had been called Susan Picard. Because why not? It just makes me chuckle.

I thought TNG was pushing the social boundaries when they gave a Frenchman a British accent. At the time, it was unthinkable.

Obviously, Britain conquers France at some point.

Either that or there's a flood of immigration as a result of Brexit. Star Trek predicted Brexit!!!

It's obviously Brexit. Or something worse. Oxford have lots of Difference when the Eiffel Tower is identic.

And, about Susan:

Posted stuff by these guys before...


The highlight for me? They asked Michael Dorn to come back as an ancestor of Worf... and offered him less than 1% of what he was paid in his last outing in the character. Classy.

That's... IDK. No words.