Author Topic: Star Trek: Discovery  (Read 18420 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline xenu

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4163
  • Chicago Blackhawks 2010,13,15 Stanley Cup Champion
Re: Star Trek: Discovery
« Reply #15 on: September 26, 2017, 08:11:15 PM »
I recorded the premier but have not watched it yet. Even if it is good there is no way I will watch the rest of them because I will not pay for another subscription service. I hope they bring it to NETFLIX USA or on air.
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move."
Douglas Adams

Offline Morvis13

  • Big Ol' Goober
  • Planetary Skeptic
  • *
  • Posts: 25659
  • Natural Source of Paranoia
Re: Star Trek: Discovery
« Reply #16 on: September 28, 2017, 09:25:25 AM »
I didn't like the Klingon's slurred speech and immobile head. This could have been any alien race instead of messing with our cannon. Still a good story with good characters.

At the end of the second episode I was pissed off that this wasn't even the right ship. More of a back story for the XO.

I don't normally watch TV and I would watch pay TV even less.
http://ew.com/tv/2017/09/25/star-trek-discovery-pirated/
Murphy's Law: Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.
Morvis' Law: Anything that does go wrong is my fault.

Offline Eternally Learning

  • Master Mr. a.k.a. Methodical Loaf
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9179
  • Break a leg, badger!
    • Get Past The 140 Character Limit!
Re: Star Trek: Discovery
« Reply #17 on: September 28, 2017, 10:02:51 AM »
I didn't like the Klingon's slurred speech and immobile head.

Same here. Some Klingons were better than others, but overall not a fan. 

Offline mindme

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8827
    • http://www.yrad.com/cs
Re: Star Trek: Discovery
« Reply #18 on: October 02, 2017, 09:26:48 AM »
Ep3 was quite good! I'm enjoying the characters.
"Because the world needs more Mark Crislip."

Conspiracy Skeptic Podcast
Korean Podcast
Michael Goudeau, Vegas Comedy Entertainer Available for Trade Shows

Offline tralfaz

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 86
Re: Star Trek: Discovery
« Reply #19 on: October 02, 2017, 09:49:20 AM »
I agree that episode 3 was better and tighter.   I was quite happy with it until it started up with the theories of Paul Stamets, the mushroom guy.  He's really knowledgeable about fungus and it's potential uses, but....  I went to a health food convention (don't ask) several years ago and Stamets was the keynote speaker.  Most of his talk was interesting, he's smart with creative ideas about the uses of mushrooms... but the last 10 minutes of the talk he went off on some weird tangent about the nature of reality and theoretical physics.  He sounded like a stoned teenager saying  "Whoooah, dude.  What if, you know, the universe is a cosmic mushroom, and like the structure of space-time is connected like a giant fungus, man."

And I cried a little.


Star Trek has always had an uneasy fascination with sketchy pop science.  I hope they drop this plot thread soon.

Offline Belgarath

  • Forum Sugar Daddy
  • Technical Administrator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 11882
Re: Star Trek: Discovery
« Reply #20 on: October 02, 2017, 10:08:31 AM »
I agree that episode 3 was better and tighter.   I was quite happy with it until it started up with the theories of Paul Stamets, the mushroom guy.  He's really knowledgeable about fungus and it's potential uses, but....  I went to a health food convention (don't ask) several years ago and Stamets was the keynote speaker.  Most of his talk was interesting, he's smart with creative ideas about the uses of mushrooms... but the last 10 minutes of the talk he went off on some weird tangent about the nature of reality and theoretical physics.  He sounded like a stoned teenager saying  "Whoooah, dude.  What if, you know, the universe is a cosmic mushroom, and like the structure of space-time is connected like a giant fungus, man."

And I cried a little.


Star Trek has always had an uneasy fascination with sketchy pop science.  I hope they drop this plot thread soon.

Did they mention Paul Stamets in the episode?  I don't recall.
#non-belief denialist

Offline mindme

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8827
    • http://www.yrad.com/cs
Re: Star Trek: Discovery
« Reply #21 on: October 02, 2017, 11:10:14 AM »
I agree that episode 3 was better and tighter.   I was quite happy with it until it started up with the theories of Paul Stamets, the mushroom guy.  He's really knowledgeable about fungus and it's potential uses, but....  I went to a health food convention (don't ask) several years ago and Stamets was the keynote speaker.  Most of his talk was interesting, he's smart with creative ideas about the uses of mushrooms... but the last 10 minutes of the talk he went off on some weird tangent about the nature of reality and theoretical physics.  He sounded like a stoned teenager saying  "Whoooah, dude.  What if, you know, the universe is a cosmic mushroom, and like the structure of space-time is connected like a giant fungus, man."

And I cried a little.


Star Trek has always had an uneasy fascination with sketchy pop science.  I hope they drop this plot thread soon.

Totally off topic but isn't Tralfaz the original name of the Jetson's dog Astro?
"Because the world needs more Mark Crislip."

Conspiracy Skeptic Podcast
Korean Podcast
Michael Goudeau, Vegas Comedy Entertainer Available for Trade Shows

Offline tralfaz

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 86
Re: Star Trek: Discovery
« Reply #22 on: October 02, 2017, 01:25:05 PM »
@Belgarath

Well, no.  But the science officer/astomycologist is named Lt. Paul Stamets.



@mindme

ding, ding, ding.  100 bonus points

Offline mindme

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8827
    • http://www.yrad.com/cs
Re: Star Trek: Discovery
« Reply #23 on: October 02, 2017, 02:34:12 PM »
@Belgarath
Well, no.  But the science officer/astomycologist is named Lt. Paul Stamets

Boy, they weren't playing coy with that name. I felt the character was a bit too openly insubordinate. I think they were going a bit with the reaction of the scientists to Star Fleet using the Genesis device as a weapon.

Michael Burnham makes me wonder about the name choice. A male name, a female character. They touched on this in Ep 3. No clue seems to indicate why the male name. One of my coworkers worked on this series and I asked her. She either did not know or wasn't saying.
"Because the world needs more Mark Crislip."

Conspiracy Skeptic Podcast
Korean Podcast
Michael Goudeau, Vegas Comedy Entertainer Available for Trade Shows

Offline Ah.hell

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13411
Re: Star Trek: Discovery
« Reply #24 on: October 02, 2017, 03:28:59 PM »
Michael Burnham makes me wonder about the name choice. A male name, a female character. They touched on this in Ep 3. No clue seems to indicate why the male name. One of my coworkers worked on this series and I asked her. She either did not know or wasn't saying.

In the US anyway, its not uncommon for traditional male names to become more common female names; Tracy, Lesley, Vivian, Madison(son of Mad), etc.  So, maybe in the future, Michael will be a female name?  Misha already is and its just Russian for Mikey.

Offline tralfaz

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 86
Re: Star Trek: Discovery
« Reply #25 on: October 02, 2017, 03:33:35 PM »
I saw some clip that interviewed one of the creators of the series.  He said that in other shows he started he gave a female character a male name.  Why?  I don't know.  Of course I'd mention that there are many boy names that have become girl names.  Morgan, Jordan, Sean/Shawn, Ashley, Beverly, Madison, Kimberly.  Not as many in the other direction.

Offline Eternally Learning

  • Master Mr. a.k.a. Methodical Loaf
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9179
  • Break a leg, badger!
    • Get Past The 140 Character Limit!
Re: Star Trek: Discovery
« Reply #26 on: October 02, 2017, 03:46:43 PM »
I liked this episode a lot.  Still not blowing me away, but this was much more solid and I'm glad to begin to get a feeling of what this show is going to be about.  I'm getting a serious Section 31 vibe off of Lorca and the ship (the black badges especially) and I'm not sure how I feel about that.  On the one hand, Trek has had its dark moments and characters so why not Discovery?  On the other hand, it's not exactly the kind of story I'd have picked for a new Trek series either.  I'm OK with it for now though.  We'll see how it turns out.

Michael Burnham makes me wonder about the name choice. A male name, a female character. They touched on this in Ep 3. No clue seems to indicate why the male name. One of my coworkers worked on this series and I asked her. She either did not know or wasn't saying.

Bryan Fuller, the original showrunner who's since left, stated that it was his tradition to have female characters with male names.  I guess it's just a personal flourish of his.  He also notes that there are a handful of somewhat famous women named Michael so it's not without precedent.

Offline PANTS!

  • One leg at a time.
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12042
  • What seals? I auditioned for this job.
Re: Star Trek: Discovery
« Reply #27 on: October 02, 2017, 03:53:29 PM »
@Belgarath
Well, no.  But the science officer/astomycologist is named Lt. Paul Stamets

Boy, they weren't playing coy with that name. I felt the character was a bit too openly insubordinate. I think they were going a bit with the reaction of the scientists to Star Fleet using the Genesis device as a weapon.

Michael Burnham makes me wonder about the name choice. A male name, a female character. They touched on this in Ep 3. No clue seems to indicate why the male name. One of my coworkers worked on this series and I asked her. She either did not know or wasn't saying.

That's a Brian Fuller thing. 
Now where I come from
We don't let society tell us how it's supposed to be
-Uptown, Prince 👉

The world is on its elbows and knees
It's forgotten the message and worships the creeds

Offline tralfaz

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 86
Re: Star Trek: Discovery
« Reply #28 on: October 02, 2017, 04:34:14 PM »
"To have a woman with a male name, speaking of … how we see men and women in the future.”

Huh, so it's interesting and exciting and futuristic for a woman to have a man's name.  Yet I doubt if we'll see a man named Roxanne or Cassandra.

Offline MTBox

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 228
  • "The last best place" to be, in or out of a box
Re: Star Trek: Discovery
« Reply #29 on: October 02, 2017, 04:42:22 PM »
"maybe in the future, Michael will be a female name?"

The Waltons' mother, actress: Michael Learned

 

personate-rain
personate-rain