Star Trek: Discovery "First Look" Trailer

[MrBoBo]

The only thing I didn't like was the Kingons.

"Look at these evil bad men" is usually a sign of lazy bad writing. The 2009+ movie did it, Voyager did it and Enterprise did it. I want something meaningful, not attempts at kewl kewl fight scenes.

Beyond that, it looked pretty good. The worlds look impressive, no longer obviously in a studio or shot in Los Angeles and the interior of the ship no longer looks like it was built by Apple.

Cast? Looks good.

So... only real worry is the writing and tone. Don't be Voyager, Enterprise or Star Trek 2009.

 

[KaraFang]

You know? I think I know what's wrong with the trailer...

I get the distinctive aftertaste of the JJ Abrahams "Star WarTre... ahem... Kelvin timeline" from this trailer. They haven't even TRIED to do a "midpoint" between Enterprise and TOS.

You COULD do it. I know the old sets look janky, considering what they had to work with they did well, but with modern tech, you COULD modernise TOS design with modern visuals a hell of a lot better than they have been doing.

Hell, you can explain some of the more "pastel" colours from TOS leaking into Discovery by commenting on "new long lasting protection coats... molecular bonded to the metal."

I just cannot, CANNOT see how the ship, uniform, and technology design fits against TOS.

I'm also disturbed that the guy who resurrected ST for a new series left due to "clashes" in development. That worries me a LOT.

 

[oRevanchisto]

I'm really hesitant about this new series especially after Bryan Fuller left to do "American Gods." However, the one thing I despise about this recent trailer is that actual aesthetic of everything, it looks WAY too much like JJtrek with the Apple Store design aesthetic of the bridge. I absolutely HATE that look. The whole point of Federation ships is that they are supposed to be civilian crafts in which whole families live on, it should look comfy and homey, not hard and sleek like a stainless steel refrigerator. That is why TNG-Post TNG ships have fucking carpet on their bridge. This also gave those ships a sort of timeless look, meanwhile the Apple design aesthetic is already starting to look dated. And, what the fuck is with them lens flares?

I guess I'll have to wait and see but the more this series riffs off of JJTrek the more I'm concerned. The best JJTrek film is the one in which he had almost zero involvement, Star Trek Beyond. Unfortunately, I don't know of anyone producing this show that is as talented as Simon Pegg. Hopefully, the writing stays true to Star Trek so I can forgive the horrible art design.

I'm a Trek fan but I've been completely uninterested in this series since it's inception, mostly due to the fact that I'm never going to pay a subscription fee to watch it, partly due to Abrahams-trek.

Also, just a minor thing, but I'm pretty sure Sulu wasn't intended to be gay, he had a daughter (no I'm not saying gay people can't have children, especially in sci-fi settings, but it was the 60's. Trek was progressive but not THAT ahead of it's time). I believe that was an Abrahams-trek addition (that Takei was against if I recall correctly)

THE FUCK, are you on about? First, Takei supported Sulu being gay. Second, "Trek was progressive but not THAT ahead of it's time," we talking about the same series that had the first interracial kiss on TV? The series the routinely seemed to promote Atheism? That essentially referred to the Cold War as childish and had a Russian crewmate? The same series with a black woman in a large role that wasn't sterotyped?

GET THE FUCK OUTTA HERE. Star Trek has ALWAYS been progressive. Sulu being gay was the latest attempt at pushing social boundaries and awareness. You know, the thing Star Trek has always been about.

 

[MrBoBo]

Ye, complaining about Star Trek being progressive is like, the dumbest argument ever.

Ever.

Ever.

 

[SirSullymore]

I'm a Trek fan but I've been completely uninterested in this series since it's inception, mostly due to the fact that I'm never going to pay a subscription fee to watch it, partly due to Abrahams-trek.

Also, just a minor thing, but I'm pretty sure Sulu wasn't intended to be gay, he had a daughter (no I'm not saying gay people can't have children, especially in sci-fi settings, but it was the 60's. Trek was progressive but not THAT ahead of it's time). I believe that was an Abrahams-trek addition (that Takei was against if I recall correctly)

THE FUCK, are you on about? First, Takei supported Sulu being gay. Second, "Trek was progressive but not THAT ahead of it's time," we talking about the same series that had the first interracial kiss on TV? The series the routinely seemed to promote Atheism? That essentially referred to the Cold War as childish and had a Russian crewmate? The same series with a black woman in a large role that wasn't sterotyped?

GET THE FUCK OUTTA HERE. Star Trek has ALWAYS been progressive. Sulu being gay was the latest attempt at pushing social boundaries and awareness. You know, the thing Star Trek has always been about.

Man, I've been having bad luck lately with people getting really mad at things I say on The Escapist.

Right off the bat, you're acting like I'm against Sulu being gay, which I never indicated anywhere in my post.

Second of all: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/george-takei-reacts-gay-sulu-909154

Third of all: Exactly, an interracial kiss was treated as controversial, you honestly think in the 60's they would have a major gay character with a family? I'd prefer it if that was the case, but somehow I doubt it.

Hell, even Next Gen was only willing to dip it's toes into LGBT issues, check out the episode "The Outcast".

So yeah, I think I'll stay the fuck in here.

 

[Zontar]

I thought the captain was supposed to be Garth, or was that cut just like the entire special effects team after their cheap, quickly made trash that was the teaser got universally panned?

Anyway this doesn't look particularly interesting. CBS seems to have forgotten that the people who watch these things on the small screen actually *gasp* liked TOS, TNG and DS9, and wanted something that recaptured that instead of the flopped reboot movies.

 

[happyninja42]

THE FUCK, are you on about? First, Takei supported Sulu being gay. Second, "Trek was progressive but not THAT ahead of it's time," we talking about the same series that had the first interracial kiss on TV? The series the routinely seemed to promote Atheism? That essentially referred to the Cold War as childish and had a Russian crewmate? The same series with a black woman in a large role that wasn't sterotyped?

GET THE FUCK OUTTA HERE. Star Trek has ALWAYS been progressive. Sulu being gay was the latest attempt at pushing social boundaries and awareness. You know, the thing Star Trek has always been about.

Actually I don't think Sulu did support changing the character. I'm almost positive that he went on record somewhere saying that the character was straight, and there wasn't a need to make him gay. Let me see if I can find it.

Yeah, here are a few links

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/george-takei-reacts-gay-sulu-909154
http://www.cinemablend.com/news/1532429/why-george-takei-isnt-happy-about-sulu-being-gay-in-star-trek-beyond

and there are several others. Basically he said "They should've just made a new character that was gay, instead of changing Sulu.

 

[KaraFang]

Doesn't look too bad. Though it was succeed or fail based on its writing.

My only real concern is that the two female leads are going to get thrown under the bus if the show fails

Because of course they are

Yeah, the writing is going to be key... Will this series feel like Trek? Or is it going to be a more "aliens bad, shoot them. Sod Diplomacy or science to try and resolve the problem."

I do know that the two women leads have nothing to worry about. Both are accomplished actresses and therefore IMO have nothing to prove. This series, we who are ST fans of the original timeline will be looking for universe and character build.

(nods)

And before anyone moans, I LOVED DS9. I did feel it sometimes painted the federation in a darker tone than it needed to... but it was a DAMN good series that did the whole "Testing their morals" series arcs very well. (Sisko's dodged quite a few court-martials because people don't know what he did/he's got the Emissary role to cover for him.)

 

[MrBoBo]

I thought the captain was supposed to be Garth, or was that cut just like the entire special effects team after their cheap, quickly made trash that was the teaser got universally panned?

Anyway this doesn't look particularly interesting. CBS seems to have forgotten that the people who watch these things on the small screen actually *gasp* liked TOS, TNG and DS9, and wanted something that recaptured that instead of the flopped reboot movies.

Movies 2009/Darkness/Beyond = Some disgruntled guy with a super weapon, Some disgruntled guy with a super weapon and Some disgruntled guy with a super weapon

I'll lol and face-palm if this ends up being the story-arc.

 

[happyninja42]

Movies 2009/Darkness/Beyond = Some disgruntled guy with a super weapon, Some disgruntled guy with a super weapon and Some disgruntled guy with a super weapon

I'll lol and face-palm if this ends up being the story-arc.

Oh come on, it goes farther back than that. ST:TNG: Nemesis was basically this plot. Generations was also this plot, and the often beloved Wrath of Khan. I'm sure there are some others in there, but those are the ones that come to mind.

Also, I still giggle about how everyone got so mad at JJ for redoing Khan in Darkness, when really he'd already done it with 2009. More directly in fact. Seriously, all of the plot points of 2009 match up perfectly to Khan, way better than Darkness did. Yet nobody ever seems to comment about it.

 

[MrBoBo]

Movies 2009/Darkness/Beyond = Some disgruntled guy with a super weapon, Some disgruntled guy with a super weapon and Some disgruntled guy with a super weapon

I'll lol and face-palm if this ends up being the story-arc.

Oh come on, it goes farther back than that. ST:TNG: Nemesis was basically this plot. Generations was also this plot, and the often beloved Wrath of Khan. I'm sure there are some others in there, but those are the ones that come to mind.

Also, I still giggle about how everyone got so mad at JJ for redoing Khan in Darkness, when really he'd already done it with 2009. More directly in fact. Seriously, all of the plot points of 2009 match up perfectly to Khan, way better than Darkness did. Yet nobody ever seems to comment about it.

I'll give Nemesis some credit. Yes it rips off WOK, yes Datas death sucks ass and yes it's depressing as hell.
Shinzon is an ok villain though, he's a reflection of Picard, Picard wants to see his potential (i.e. Star Trek vision) but Shinzon let's his upbringing dictate who he is, he refuses to rise above it.

Athough Datas death is executed horribly, he learns what is to be human, not because of some emotion chip, but through his sacrifice. Instead of people lecturing him, he's lecturing them in the movie. Unlike Shinzon (as the final speech puts it) he embarrassed change.

There is at least something going on here, however flawed. It at least attempts to form a sentence.

Every 2009+ turn your brain off nothing.

 

[Saelune]

Why I dont care about this show.

1. Its a prequel. Push ahead dammit.

2. Its not on something I watch. Eventually every channel/network will have its own service that the internet will just be expensive TV.

 

[KaraFang]

Oh come on, it goes farther back than that. ST:TNG: Nemesis was basically this plot. Generations was also this plot, and the often beloved Wrath of Khan. I'm sure there are some others in there, but those are the ones that come to mind.

Also, I still giggle about how everyone got so mad at JJ for redoing Khan in Darkness, when really he'd already done it with 2009. More directly in fact. Seriously, all of the plot points of 2009 match up perfectly to Khan, way better than Darkness did. Yet nobody ever seems to comment about it.

Mmn, ST:Generations wasn't so much "disgruntled guy with superweapon" more along the lines of: "Desperate, almost showing signs of a drug Addicted personality guy trying to get back to the place that made him feel SOO GOOD!".

He just used something that could be classed as a weapon, but he didn't really give a damn about destroying things, it was a byproduct of getting to the Nexus again.

I pondered MrBoBo's comment and he's kinda right.

ST1: Facing an unknown super-entity = defeated by using federation noodles

ST2: Khan wants to kill Kirk, the genesis device (not a super weapon per se but what it could DO is) was a bonus to him and a way to get Kirk there. But this one is primarily revenge by "KHAAAAANNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!" (my fav STriginal cast movie. It's SO good!)

ST3: - Damn, we left Spock, better get him back. Oh, and Klingons who want Genesis to level the "power field" between them and the Fed. (no super weapon use per se)

ST4: Unknown Entity, no way to defeat it apart from whales from the past. (one of my favourite STriginal cast films... it's just so tongue in cheek funny).

ST5: Finding god. No superpower. I suppose you can say Sybock is Disgruntled, or rather uses disgruntled people... but no super weapons in sight. Just an evil "god".

ST6: Political assassination plot. Do we class the Klingon Bird of Prey as a super weapon? It wasn't a good one... (my third fav)

ST: Generations - Guy wants to go to a nexus cause it feels good. Has to blow up suns to do it. Not really a super weapon user this one. Sun blowing up was a byproduct. He did say he'd tried every other way to get back...

ST: FC - Ze Borg. Wonderful. No super weapons, just ace baddies.

ST: Insurrection - Another semi-political one. It's OK and the Trill helms-woman was sexy.

ST:Nemesis - Super weapon movie. But I still to this day can't see Shinzon's ultimate intention. To kill the feds? Why? The Romulans were dicks to the Reman population. Awful script, some major universe tech/law breaking to make it work too. (sighs). Only good thing? Seeing the Sovereign unleash hell (God yes) and smashing her into the enemy ship at the end. VERY cool.

Then JJ Abrams Starwars application to Disney... ahem. Sorry, the "reboot" (wiggles fingers) to mediocre god-awfulness that not even Zachary Quinto, Simon Pegg and Karl Urban could rescue it from.

MOST of the ST:Original cast movies were more "the unknown" or having to deal with diplomacy/political issues. And they were really good too (most of them). Hell, I'll say that ST1 and 3 are decent, nothing special but decent. (ST:5 is a Shatner ego project ugh)

As long as Discovery goes along the "lets see what's out there" or even the politics route, it should be good. I worry this isn't where they are heading, especially with the "The Federation doesn't fire first." "This time we HAVE to!" scene. (rolls eyes). Ugh.

 

[happyninja42]

Mmn, ST:Generations wasn't so much "disgruntled guy with superweapon" more along the lines of: "Desperate, almost showing signs of a drug Addicted personality guy trying to get back to the place that made him feel SOO GOOD!".

He came across as disgruntled to me. Sick of this world, and wanting the one he had before, to the extent of blowing up reality.

He just used something that could be classed as a weapon

How is Genesis any different? It's something can be "classified" as a weapon, which makes it a weapon. Sure, a baseball bat isn't "designed" to be a weapon. It's designed to hit balls for fun. But it very much IS a weapon regardless, in that it's a very effective way to beat someone to death.

ST5: Finding god. No superpower. I suppose you can say Sybock is Disgruntled, or rather uses disgruntled people... but no super weapons in sight. Just an evil "god".

I consider the being they were about to unleash as a weapon itself, though I can see people disagreeing with this. Again, I think you are splitting hairs with this "not technically a weapon" thing you are running with. If it's capable of causing massive destruction on a planetary or greater scale, it's a weapon.

ST: Generations - Guy wants to go to a nexus cause it feels good. Has to blow up suns to do it. Not really a super weapon user this one. Sun blowing up was a byproduct. He did say he'd tried every other way to get back...

Again with this "not a superweapon thing". Does it have to be manufactored by a military to qualify as weapon for you? See above statement about bats.

ST:Nemesis - Super weapon movie. But I still to this day can't see Shinzon's ultimate intention. To kill the feds? Why? The Romulans were dicks to the Reman population. Awful script, some major universe tech/law breaking to make it work too. (sighs). Only good thing? Seeing the Sovereign unleash hell (God yes) and smashing her into the enemy ship at the end. VERY cool.

He was disgruntled about the life he was subjected to, in comparison to Picard. Or at least that was the gist I got from it. Pretty much just like why Lore was so pissed at Data. He was jealous of the better life Data had, and lashed out at others as a result.

 

[Hawki]

This also gave those ships a sort of timeless look, meanwhile the Apple design aesthetic is already starting to look dated.

There's many words I could use to describe the TOS look. "Timeless" isn't among it. It has a charm to it, but they're more akin to the old Doctor Who sets - part of the camp.

I guess I'll have to wait and see but the more this series riffs off of JJTrek the more I'm concerned. The best JJTrek film is the one in which he had almost zero involvement, Star Trek Beyond.

Personally, I found it the weakest.

Ye, complaining about Star Trek being progressive is like, the dumbest argument ever.

Ever.

Ever.

I dunno, I can think of a few - don't like aliens, don't like ships, don't like sci-fi, etc. ;p

and wanted something that recaptured that instead of the flopped reboot movies.

Source needed on them flopping.

 

[Supernova1138]

Source needed on them flopping.

Star Trek (2009) was reasonably successful and Into Darkness also made a profit though it didn't do as well as Star Trek (2009) Star Trek Beyond was a minor box office failure. Compared to Paramount's other films of that year, Beyond did well, but that's not saying much considering just about everything Paramount put out flopped in 2016. It's why there is uncertainty on whether the reboot movies will continue, or if Paramount will let Star Trek rest for a little while and then try another reboot in a few years with a new cheaper cast.

 

[Hawki]

Star Trek (2009) was reasonably successful and Into Darkness also made a profit though it didn't do as well as Star Trek (2009) Star Trek Beyond was a minor box office failure.

$343.5 million against a production budget of $185 million (for Beyond)

I can't contest that's an "underperformance" (to quote Wikipedia), but I wouldn't call that a flop, which I'd use for films that either fail to make back their budget or only just break even. If we're looking at Star Trek flops, we can take a look at Nemesis, which made a net profit of around 7 million, and was bad enough critically and commercially to temporarily kill the film series.

 

[Supernova1138]

Star Trek (2009) was reasonably successful and Into Darkness also made a profit though it didn't do as well as Star Trek (2009) Star Trek Beyond was a minor box office failure.

$343.5 million against a production budget of $185 million (for Beyond)

I can't contest that's an "underperformance" (to quote Wikipedia), but I wouldn't call that a flop, which I'd use for films that either fail to make back their budget or only just break even. If we're looking at Star Trek flops, we can take a look at Nemesis, which made a net profit of around 7 million, and was bad enough critically and commercially to temporarily kill the film series.

Films need to make more than double their production budget to really profit once you factor in marketing and distribution costs. At best Beyond might have barely broken even once you factor in foreign ticket sales and home video sales. Beyond is probably more similar to Nemesis in terms of box office performance and may well put the film franchise on ice for a while.

 

[Hawki]

Films need to make more than double their production budget to really profit once you factor in marketing and distribution costs. At best Beyond might have barely broken even once you factor in foreign ticket sales and home video sales. Beyond is probably more similar to Nemesis in terms of box office performance and may well put the film franchise on ice for a while.

Fair enough, except Star Trek XIV is at least being worked on script-wise, whereas Nemesis had a planned sequel which was scrapped. Star Trek films not doing well at the box office also extends to the first and fifth films. Again, also helps that Beyond did well critically (personal thoughts aside), while Nemesis didn't.