|
|
Post by legios on Sept 26, 2017 5:19:58 GMT
I was confused the show confirmed to an act structure with fading to black for a streaming service show. Clearly made with an eye to selling it in a Broadcast environment at some pt. As I understand it, CBS All Access runs adverts during shows, so the act breaks are possibly there for that reason. (Yep, it is a subscription-only streaming service which also sells advertising space - it is effectively Cable TV on the Internet rather than the Netflix model). Karl |
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Sept 26, 2017 7:12:59 GMT
I am annoyed by the First Officer plotline the more I think about it. I can see what the intent is but its so hamfisted. We are told constantly she's been on the ship for 7 years so is quite experienced. I can buy a rookie pulling what she does to get to where she is in ep 2 but not an experienced officer. Feels like the plot was being twisted to fit the premise rather than it coming out naturally.
Gah!
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Sept 26, 2017 17:04:41 GMT
Avoid AFTER TREK! Avoid!!!
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by Bogatan on Sept 26, 2017 17:06:38 GMT
I'm the opposite, initially I was what the hell just happened, but the more I think about it the more the idea that a human victim of a Klingon massacre, raised by Vulcans to repress emotions would freak the hell out when suddenly faced with risk of losing her new family to Klingons.
I agree they probably didn't give the idea quite enough room to breath, but it does make sense to me.
It also potentially give Spock more of a reason for his actions in Undiscovered Country.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bogatan on Sept 26, 2017 17:16:42 GMT
I just realised what was really bothering me about the Klingons. No hair. Just doesnt work without the hair.
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on Sept 26, 2017 17:27:53 GMT
Avoid AFTER TREK! Avoid!!! -Ralph Ralph took one for the team there. Unfortunately he did text the experience to a privileged few. |
|
|
|
Post by blueshift on Sept 26, 2017 17:29:05 GMT
Avoid AFTER TREK! Avoid!!! -Ralph Ralph took one for the team there. Unfortunately he did text the experience to a privileged few. Is it spoilers or is it like that Doctor Who 50th Special after show |
|
|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on Sept 26, 2017 17:31:48 GMT
The latter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toph on Sept 26, 2017 18:21:43 GMT
Well, after the success of Chris Hardwick's Talking Dead, everyone wants to try their own after talkshow.
The problem is, not everyone is Chris Hardwick, not every show kinda needs the decompression, and not every show deserves it.
BBCA tried one after Orphan Black, and it was bloody awful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bogatan on Sept 26, 2017 18:30:07 GMT
I think I remember the BBC did one for the first season of 24 or at least for a few episodes. It wasn't bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Sept 26, 2017 18:42:57 GMT
Ralph took one for the team there. Unfortunately he did text the experience to a privileged few. Is it spoilers or is it like that Doctor Who 50th Special after show The latter. -Ralph |
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Sept 26, 2017 18:45:17 GMT
The problem with AFTER TREK is that the host is trying to be OTT funny every second and seems to think the show is about him. Also some inappropriate sexual humour including strong language as the host kept banging about pon farr. It's a show based on Star Trek: there will be kids watching!!!
Awful. Avoid like the plague.
Respect due to actor James Frain who did a sterling job of showing his disdain but still taking part in a way only British actors can do.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by legios on Sept 26, 2017 18:59:21 GMT
Avoid AFTER TREK! Avoid!!! -Ralph Yep, I'd already jinked through a couple of 10G evasion routines before you engaged it. (And having seen what it did to you if it tries to get anywhere near me I am thinking of tossing a couple of nuclear torpedoes downrange to "discourage" it.) On the topic of the XO's judgement I think part of the problem is that they were trying to sell this as a flaw in a character who otherwise has excellent judgement. The problem with that is that we don't get to see enough of her sound judgement in action before her character flaw leads her into her tragic mistake. Other characters talk about her sound judgement, and how often she has been right, but that is all off-screen hot-air - we needed to see her make counter-intuitive suggestions and be right, to sell the idea of the chain of events we see being a tragic misstep, the guilt of which burns away at her inside. To much talk about who she is, and not enough show I think contributes to it not quite working the way they intended on-screen. I understand what they were going for, but I'm not sure that they sold it as well as they could have done. Karl |
|
|
|
Post by Pinwig on Sept 29, 2017 22:49:51 GMT
Friday night Star Trek special!
That was amazing! Loved it. Sometimes not being heavily invested in a show pays off. The Klingons seem to be rocking an ancient Egypt vibe, but it works.
Ep 2 next Friday!
|
|
|
|
Post by blueshift on Sept 30, 2017 6:21:25 GMT
Friday night Star Trek special! That was amazing! Loved it. Sometimes not being heavily invested in a show pays off. The Klingons seem to be rocking an ancient Egypt vibe, but it works. Ep 2 next Friday! Oh no, pinwig has gone rogue!!! (Genuinely glad it's working for someone!) |
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Sept 30, 2017 8:55:39 GMT
Having thought about it I think it's how the central conceit was done that caused me issues, not the idea itself. Burnham's mutiny just does not ring true. She shows no remorse over killing the Klingon torchbearer or even mentions it was an accident then goes completely nuts and stages a mutiny despite being an experienced officer rather than a green ensign. The clunky backstory over EP 2 SPOILERS wasn't needed (and also makes no sense as we *repeatedly* told there has been no contact with the Klingons "for a hundred years").
I feel it would have been more effective had she been involved in botched 'new attempt at contact with the Klingons' where it was a situation where she just made an honest mistake in a high-risk situation. The character would have been more sympathetic and the audience would be more rooted in seeing what happens to her next. At the moment, I just think the character is such an unprincipled monumental egotistical prick I don't give a toss what happens to her.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by Bogatan on Sept 30, 2017 15:05:15 GMT
I think they said little contact or technically being bombed from orbit isnt contact in the Federation sense.
The more I think about it, the pilot makes way more sense as the final 2 episodes of the seventh season of Star trek: Shenzou. You get a flashback to the pilot episode so viewers can be reminded just how green Burnham was to start with. They dont need to show how competent she is, thats what the last seven years have been for. It would have also allowed them to show her conflict between Vulcan training and human nature.
Imagine Voyagers pilot being the final 2 parts of TNG were Riker loses his shit get Enterprise blown up and Picard killed then is sentenced to life. Episode 3 starts with Riker, a bunch of Marquis prisoners and Enterprise survivors being transported back to Earth. When they go missing in the Badlands and Voyager is sent to investigate.
Anyway if Discovery is successful I fully expect we'll get the seven year mission of the Starship Shenzou shortly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bogatan on Sept 30, 2017 15:14:47 GMT
I say this despite really enjoying Discovery, it shouldn't have been done as a prequel.
I get that Klingons are the prefered metaphor for the wests enemies and after them being allies in the TNG era it might be a hard sell, but instead of Klingons they could have used the Romulans post their world going boom.
After the Dominion war you could probably sell the federation as being a little darker than usual and The Romulans, after Spock/The Federation failed to save their homeworld, would have worked as terrorists/relious fanatics blaming the federation for what happened. And no body would have been complaining about technology, costumes and whatever else not being suitible for the period.
|
|
|
|
Post by blueshift on Sept 30, 2017 15:20:13 GMT
I say this despite really enjoying Discovery, it shouldn't have been done as a prequel. I get that Klingons are the prefered metaphor for the wests enemies and after them being allies in the TNG era it might be a hard sell, but instead of Klingons they could have used the Romulans post their world going boom. After the Dominion war you could probably sell the federation as being a little darker than usual and The Romulans, after Spock/The Federation failed to save their homeworld, would have worked as terrorists/relious fanatics blaming the federation for what happened. And no body would have been complaining about technology, costumes and whatever else not being suitible for the period. Eh, Klingons would still work. I mean, if you want to use the Russia parallel, Russia was our enemy until the late 80s, then our friends and now everyone is all on edge and shifty whilst still being outwardly friendly. The Ferenghi would be space Trump. Everyone underestimates them as they are hilarious to laugh at, and then their space offices fly up and start carpet bombing your planet with Tescos. The Borg would be redesigned into Borg 2.0, all white and neon like Apple products. In the 80s we were scared of technology violently taking us over. Now we're happily giving our souls over to it. Bit of marketing and the Borg are running ads for conversion and pressing to be the Federation's best friends, if only they downloads their new app. I have no idea what to do with Romulans. They're boring  |
|
|
|
Post by Toph on Sept 30, 2017 22:25:36 GMT
I'm having a personal dilemma.
I will not get to see it until it's out on DVD. I love Star Trek, but there has to be a *lot* more offered through CBS All Access that appeals specifically to me, than just a new Trek series and all the repeats of CBS series I've seen, in order for me to go through the hassel it takes to watch anything online.
But, who knows when that'll be? Netflix takes years to put stuff on DVD. Hulu takes even longer (Longmire still isn't out, and it's been years).
It's gonna be impossible to avoid every potential spoiler. But do I just not bother and accept my fate, or do I try to tough it out and withdraw from all buy the most absolutely basic conversations?
(Edit: longmire season 5 *was* released a few days ago, apparently)
|
|
|
|
Post by legios on Oct 2, 2017 17:42:16 GMT
Eh. Depends if you are interested in seeing it, and how much it bothers you to know about things in essence before you see how they actually work on-screen
I abandoned ship on the previous two Star Trek series at the 90 minute mark and never felt particularly hard done by. Sure, I've since gone back and watched episodes of both where I knew the basic plot but I nevertheless enjoyed episodes of one of them - because it isn't necessarily the story that is essential to my enjoyment but its execution. For me how the story is told is as important as what the story is - what the actors do, what the director does, the DP etc... Those are what make or break a television show for me.
In a similar way I into season two of The Expanse already knowing almost every detail of the first five episodes - because it was the last third of the first book of the series - but thoroughly enjoyed seeing how that story was then told, the choices that the actors made and how they shaded the story...
I guess if you are mostly in it for the plot, then it could be problematic. For me it wouldn't be an issue, but I can see why it is for you. I wish I could make a recommendation one way or another, other than "go with your gut" really.
(And don't remind me about Netflix's policy on DVD releases. Part of me is kind of expecting to never see a DVD release of "The Expanse", which is one of the few things at the moment likely to tick me off enough to start cursing at them in Belter, Sa Say?)
Karl
|
|
|
|
Post by Toph on Oct 2, 2017 18:22:58 GMT
Thanks for your thoughts. It does help.
The Expance is a broadcast show, here, being a Syfy production, and is put out on DVD/Bluray after a reasonable few months post season.
Of course that's not to say Netflix isn't blocking a release for you guys.
I hate streaming services. Not that I dislike the concept of them, because that's fine. It may annoy me at times like this, but I do see it as a completely valid form of media consumption. (I even hope one of them will save Powerless)
I just hate that people have gotten into this false permanence narrative, that if something is on (insert Service here), that it'll be up and available forever and "why should I buy a DVD when I can watch it on my computer whenever I want?" And netflix only feeds this by blocking DVD/Bluray releases for years.
Then when said service takes something down, there's this mad rush from fans to "watch it before it's gone forever!!!"
In the meantime, dvd sales have slipped, companies aren't making back what they need, and are underproducing or outright passing on series sets, because of this false permanence narrative. Then by the time a series leave the service, the dvds are rare and no longer produced (if at all), and there's now a flood of people trying to get them and driving up second hand prices.
|
|
|
|
Post by legios on Oct 2, 2017 18:23:51 GMT
So, on the bright side for Discovery it can't claim the record for shortest period for Karl to bail out on a Star Trek show whatever happens. Enterprise and Voyager both jointly remain prize holders at 90mins. On the other hand it is more than possible it might get the second place slot at 130ish minutes
The fundamental problem at this point is that I intensely dislike almost every character in the show except for Doug Jones' Saru. At the moment he is the only character who resembles a viable Star Trek protagonist - he is open-minded, wants to learn new things, tries to extend the hand of friendship as best he can and wants to see the best in people. He actually feels like he belongs in a series in the Star Trek series. No, correction, he looks like he belongs on the side of a Star Trek series that we are supposed to be rooting for. The problem is that no-one else does.
The Captain is clearly a "hard space man making hard space decisions", his security chief is a "whatever it takes to get the job done", the mushroomgennieering officer is a total jerk, and Ensign AwkwardNerdyKid feels like she has "tragic but heroic sacrifice in waiting" scrawled at the top of her bio".
I think we are supposed to like Ensign AwkwardNerdyKid... but if so they have tin-eared the character to death. She is supposed to be halfway through Space Annapolis, but she seems more like a fifth year high-schooler than even an undergraduate student to me.
The heavy-handed "bad things are being done here" foreshadowing is so unsubtle that it passed the point of parody for me - black badges ooooo, scary. "Starfleet doesn't do things like that" riposted with "This is Discovery". If there isn't some reference to a "Section 31" of something or other by the fifth or sixth episode I'll be quite surprised.
I suspect that I can see where they are going with this eventually - "tarnished and disgraced Michael Burnham discovers her new Captain is even more of a traitor to Starfleet and the Federation's values than she has been and must move heaven and Earth to find redemption in stopping them". But if they want to play that story from the point of view of a fair chunk of our regular characters being "hard men making hard decisions" then it shows a lack of understanding of the narrative physics of Star Trek as a setting. Simply put, it means we are watching a show about the bad guys!
Didn't really enjoy the plot either. Ok, monster on a spaceship as a result of an experiment gone wrong could be fun... but any attempt to build tension was perfunctory. The "what the hell do we do now" was barely there at all... It felt very painted-by-numbers. And the deployment of Lewis Carroll was hilariously tin-eared - there are subtler ways to foreshadow "things are not what they seem, the rules are not what you think they are"...
Eh. I bailed out of the last two Star Trek TV spin-offs out of apathy. This one might be the one where I just don't like the taste of it.
Long story short: "Seal bulkheads and prepare explosive bolts. We may have to separate the Saucer..." Karl |
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Oct 2, 2017 18:31:12 GMT
Episode 3 very much reminded me of Stargate: Universe in tone and feel.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by legios on Oct 2, 2017 18:38:52 GMT
Thanks for your thoughts. It does help. The Expance is a broadcast show, here, being a Syfy production, and is put out on DVD/Bluray after a reasonable few months post season. Of course that's not to say Netflix isn't blocking a release for you guys. Ah yes, I'd forgotten that it was SyFy in the US. I'm not sure if it is Netflix that is blocking a physical media release, or if it is just that no-one is interested in producing an R2 release. Netflix was actually the vehicle of last resort for "The Expanse" it go shopped around every major channel in Europe for quite a while before they had to admit defeat. (A real shame, the second best SF series around at the moment too. After "Electric Dreams") That is interesting, from a psychological point of view. I think it is because I don't really see streaming services at "permanent" myself. After all, it is just rental - no different to an Office365 subscription, you've only got access to the thing whilst you are paying the subscription fee. I find it interesting that people invest it with a sense of permanency. (Actually, my current job role involves me quite heavily in areas related to digital provision/acquisitions - and if nothing else it reinforces very strongly the "if it isn't owned, then you don't own it" mentality.) That said - I don't necessarily even see physical media as a permanent thing. There are plenty of things I have bought knowing that I will likely own them for a while and then they will be gone. It is how I am beginning to view a lot of my toy collections, and large chunks of the books I own. They may stay a year, two, five or more years but in likelihood they will be gone one day... There is probably academic research on this out there somewhere. Once I am no longer lurgified I think I have a new side interest to delve into when I get back to the databases. Apologies for the detour - if I was a Starfleet Officer I suspect I might be one of those less "two=fisted" types who would be musing about the cultural drivers for Klingon aggression at the same time as trying to avoid being killed by one... Karl |
|
|
|
Post by blueshift on Oct 2, 2017 18:41:30 GMT
Episode 3 was solid. Should have been the first one. Seriously. Boggles me even more why they started it like it did! Actually felt like Star Trek in places, apart from when they were running about with flashlights and fighting a monster and there were dead bodies full of gore and mangled bloody limbs |
|
|
|
Post by legios on Oct 2, 2017 18:46:57 GMT
Episode 3 very much reminded me of Stargate: Universe in tone and feel. -Ralph I can actually see where you are coming from with that. And I enjoyed Universe quite a lot. I'm just not sure that it is the tone and feel that I want from a Star Trek show. In the same way as Star Trek Into Darkness it kind of feels like it is working on the wrong narrative logic for the setting it is supposed to be in. It may be that this just isn't for me. (I do like the sound of the hypothetical "Star Trek: Shenzou" you mentioned previously in the thread. I think that would be more what would work for me as a Star Trek show.) Karl |
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Oct 4, 2017 18:40:21 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by blueshift on Oct 4, 2017 19:49:38 GMT
So they're making the first half of the season 9 eps and the second 6, rather than 8 and 7? That's.... weird. I wonder if it's in two arcs, and bringing the first ep of the second arc forward will 'entice' people to continue subscribing. We'll see! |
|
|
|
Post by Toph on Oct 4, 2017 20:07:48 GMT
Well, after they started filming, CBS ordered more episodes. It had originally been slated for 13 or so (I think?) and they bumped it up. So that may have something to do with it.
|
|
