CBS Offers "Star Trek: Discovery" Season 2 Premiere for Free on YouTube

Merc1138

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 25, 2010
Messages
2,128
Not something I considered before, but yes I'd be fine with them using a shuttle for the scene. Though my enjoyment may be slightly diminished if the blue shirt didn't get blown up :)
See? It could have been done without using glass pods instead of armored and shielded shuttles, still had Michael piloting the shuttle instead of knowing better than the entirety of Starfleet, and the best part... have an impact cause the co-pilot's panel to explode(I'm going to assume you're at least familiar with that being a trope in Star Trek) killing a guy or even better... have someone on the shuttle be an idiot who doesn't think he needs to wear a seatbelt and have the windshield get cracked and have him get sucked into space before a force field can pop up and keep everyone else from getting killed.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
61,369
I believe you are mixing up disbelief with the jarring that us fans of the series experience when the narrative convention established over decades is dramatically broken like this. STD is by no means the first to do so, but it is by far the worst if you ignore Into Darkness (which imho is the worst).

Well said. As for the reboot films, you can really ignore them entirely. They were built to be flashy and appeal to the mainstream. They are more action focused than anything. Fans don't like them all that well for the same reasons many people don't like STD. If you really analyze them, the shit makes no sense. Some of the changes are due to the alternative copy right license more than anything else. Even so, the franchise wasn't handled well in the film series. I like the casting, but aside from that they missed the mark in almost every way.

The problem with the scene (and, from what I understand the show in general) is that the explanation essentially boils down to "it works because the plot says it does" which is just lazy writing. Doing something because its cool (also known as the "rule of cool") is all fine and dandy but in a show like Trek it also needs to be done in a way that is believable. Its a problem the reboot movies had too, a feeling that they decided to do a cool scene and then haphazardly wrote a reason for doing it last minute.

Exactly. As fans of the show, we've come to expect certain standards in the franchise. When earlier shows were dumbed down on the science, they caught flak too as the quality of writing suffered for it.

See? It could have been done without using glass pods instead of armored and shielded shuttles, still had Michael piloting the shuttle instead of knowing better than the entirety of Starfleet, and the best part... have an impact cause the co-pilot's panel to explode(I'm going to assume you're at least familiar with that being a trope in Star Trek) killing a guy or even better... have someone on the shuttle be an idiot who doesn't think he needs to wear a seatbelt and have the windshield get cracked and have him get sucked into space before a force field can pop up and keep everyone else from getting killed.

Exactly.

Can't say I disagree with any of that.

He's pretty spot on with how that could have been done. It is also how something like that would generally be handled in Star Trek.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 21, 2009
Messages
2,313
The problem with the scene (and, from what I understand the show in general) is that the explanation essentially boils down to "it works because the plot says it does" which is just lazy writing. Doing something because its cool (also known as the "rule of cool") is all fine and dandy but in a show like Trek it also needs to be done in a way that is believable. Its a problem the reboot movies had too, a feeling that they decided to do a cool scene and then haphazardly wrote a reason for doing it last minute.

More like it works because the writers decided that they needed another thing for Michael Burnham to be good at. For some reason. I wonder if it's in her contract or something that they have to keep coming up with more shit for her to be an expert at.

That scene would have made far more sense if all the prior shuttles shown had been relatively ungainly monstrosities that would have actually been unable to be used, necessitating the turbo mega Michael Burnham specials, two would have gotten smashed and upon return, someone could have been all "Oh snap, we need something better, if only our shuttles didn't suck." And the engineers could have been like "TaDa! We've improved the shuttles ala Delta Flyer!" But Michael Burnham was apparently on the testing or something for the snow globes so, well...
 

Aireoth

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
6,016
Well said. As for the reboot films, you can really ignore them entirely. They were built to be flashy and appeal to the mainstream. They are more action focused than anything. Fans don't like them all that well for the same reasons many people don't like STD. If you really analyze them, the shit makes no sense. Some of the changes are due to the alternative copy right license more than anything else. Even so, the franchise wasn't handled well in the film series. I like the casting, but aside from that they missed the mark in almost every way.

Well STD is doing one thing right that other star treks failed at, show us, don't tell us. Sadly they are also inventing a bunch of stupid shit to go with that, when the conventional would have been just fine.

I actually really liked Beyond, it felt like Star Trek to me from set design, costume, backgrounds, and much of the story. I think I am one of the few, but would be happy to go into great detail over it. The other two can suck my balls.
 

Merc1138

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 25, 2010
Messages
2,128
Well STD is doing one thing right that other star treks failed at, show us, don't tell us. Sadly they are also inventing a bunch of stupid shit to go with that, when the conventional would have been just fine.

I actually really liked Beyond, it felt like Star Trek to me from set design, costume, backgrounds, and much of the story. I think I am one of the few, but would be happy to go into great detail over it. The other two can suck my balls.
Beyond actually did finally have the cast doing something that seemed like Star Trek, the two problems though was first that the previous two films basically doomed it to bomb no matter what, and the bad guy in beyond was TERRIBLE. Damn guy could have left the planet at any time, decided to wait on the enterprise to show up, then blow it up? Was aware enough of what was going on outside of his planet to setup the crazy scheme to lure the enterprise there... to blow it up. Was capable of sending out people to get things done, and couldn't have just left on his own? Come on. His fleet of bee ships could have destroyed that station without needing his magic people vaporizing mcguffin in the air conditioning.
 

Skyblue

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 2, 2008
Messages
292
The main problem with the pods was their size. It was a rescue operation, using pods because transporters didnt work. So they fly along i their pods, which cannot carry any other persons except for the pilot. No rescue of anyone is possible. This is stupidity at Prometheus levels.

.. Of course Wesley^h^h^h..Burnman saves the ship, and the one guy who thinks he knows better than her, is immediately killed of by the writers...
 

Aireoth

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
6,016
Beyond actually did finally have the cast doing something that seemed like Star Trek, the two problems though was first that the previous two films basically doomed it to bomb no matter what, and the bad guy in beyond was TERRIBLE. Damn guy could have left the planet at any time, decided to wait on the enterprise to show up, then blow it up? Was aware enough of what was going on outside of his planet to setup the crazy scheme to lure the enterprise there... to blow it up. Was capable of sending out people to get things done, and couldn't have just left on his own? Come on. His fleet of bee ships could have destroyed that station without needing his magic people vaporizing mcguffin in the air conditioning.

He was still better than Chumberkhan and acting depth of a baNana.
 
Last edited:

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
61,369
Well STD is doing one thing right that other star treks failed at, show us, don't tell us. Sadly they are also inventing a bunch of stupid shit to go with that, when the conventional would have been just fine.

I actually really liked Beyond, it felt like Star Trek to me from set design, costume, backgrounds, and much of the story. I think I am one of the few, but would be happy to go into great detail over it. The other two can suck my balls.

Beyond was closer to Star Trek than anything we've seen from the reboot movies. It's still bad for a number of reasons, but at least some effort was made to have it try and feel like Star Trek. The brewery shit from the earlier films was fucking terrible regarding set design.

The main problem with the pods was their size. It was a rescue operation, using pods because transporters didnt work. So they fly along i their pods, which cannot carry any other persons except for the pilot. No rescue of anyone is possible. This is stupidity at Prometheus levels.

.. Of course Wesley^h^h^h..Burnman saves the ship, and the one guy who thinks he knows better than her, is immediately killed of by the writers...

Good points. As for Wesley, he was a bad character and probably one of the biggest mistakes of the TNG era. Wesley was another example of a Mary Sue. He was white, heterosexual and male. We all still hated him. Naturally, we don't like Michael Burnham for many of the same reasons. She's even LESS realistic than Wesley was. At least Wesley was only smart. Burnham is the best pilot, shooter, fighter, etc. in addition to being the smartest one on board. That's yet another thing the SJW crowd doesn't get when calling Star Trek fans out for being racists, sexists, etc. If they understood the Star Trek series and films prior to STD and the shitty reboots, they would know they haven't got a leg to stand on in calling Star Trek fans any of those things.
 
Last edited:

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
61,369
I really enjoyed the first season. Not sure what all the hate is about, it's a great series.

Then go read the damn posts about what's wrong and then you'll be sure what "all the hate is about." It isn't a good series. It would be mediocre as a science fiction series due to writing issues. However, it's even worse as a Star Trek series.

TLDR:
  • The writing is abysmal. There are many examples of this in the thread. Season 2's premiere episode alone has two HUGE issues.
  • The show portrays all white men as villains.
  • The other men, and white men who aren't villains are spineless or totally incompetent at their jobs.
  • The ensemble cast formula was thrown out. This might work if the main character could carry the show. It can't.
  • Michael Burnham is a terrible "Mary Sue" of a character who is better than everyone at everything.
  • Michael Burnham isn't relatable or even likable.
  • Better characters than Michael Burnham or potentially good characters are underutilized. They are window dressing at best.
  • Legacy Star Trek characters are portrayed entirely differently than they were in their original versions. This creates problems with Star Trek Canon.
  • Klingon redesign creates issues with Star Trek canon.
  • Star Trek Canon violated repeatedly.
  • Visual elements introduced which make no logical sense and work against established Star Trek lore. These elements are made to be flashy but often make no sense. The snow globe pods are an example of this.
  • Alternative Copyright License in use by Paramount and Bad Robot (Who produces the show despite CBS's ownership) creates a problem as everything must be 25% different from its original version. This is one of the most significant sources of issues behind the production of this show.
There are far more issues than those I've mentioned but that's the most egregious in my opinion. My comment about legacy characters being mishandled isn't strong enough. Changing Spock into a sociopath, hipster douche and a sister fucker (I am not joking) is an egregious error on the writers part that can't be forgiven. Sarek, Spock's father is also seriously altered and mishandled. The comments about how men are consistently portrayed is an example of propping up women at the expense of men. This isn't how equality is achieved. In fact, this kind of bullshit is ultimately divisive as it pits one group against another. Star Trek never had to resort to this and was always way ahead of its time as far as being progressive goes.

That clear enough?
 
Last edited:

Draax

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
5,213
I really enjoyed the first season. Not sure what all the hate is about, it's a great series.
Some people enjoy hating things. Micro analyzing and critiquing everything. They cannot fathom that anyone else could enjoy something that they desire to hate. It’s sad ... and I’m glad I don’t have to live like that.

tumblr_lwudgwhIJv1qh87wbo1_1280.jpg
 
Last edited:

Skyblue

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 2, 2008
Messages
292
I hate Star Trek Discovery. Its nothing but social justice sh!te. Last episode this friday or was it last, was the drop. Jebus its bad.

However, other more talented people can make a great scifi series. Umbrella Academy to the rescue.
It got:
An annoying kid main character (one of many)
A black girl main character
A gay guy main character
A girl of possible infinite power.

And thats it., Its awesome. Because the point of the series is not that they are kids, girls, black or gay. They just happen to be.
 

nightfly

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 7, 2011
Messages
3,549
I really don't care if the cast is made up of half midget transsexual Africans and half giant Asian gay Mennonites with red hair on their nuts. If it's got a good story, I'll watch it. If, OTOH, it's like TOS 'The way to Eden', I won't. I still hate that episode. You can make fiction into anything you want. But it has to be entertaining.
 

dgz

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2010
Messages
5,838
I hate Star Trek Discovery. Its nothing but social justice sh!te. Last episode this friday or was it last, was the drop. Jebus its bad.

However, other more talented people can make a great scifi series. Umbrella Academy to the rescue.
It got:
An annoying kid main character (one of many)
A black girl main character
A gay guy main character
A girl of possible infinite power.

And thats it., Its awesome. Because the point of the series is not that they are kids, girls, black or gay. They just happen to be.

First season was pretty good. Loved it. Season 2 has been total garbage so far. Never thought I'd say this but... in retrospect, Neelix wasn't so bad, was he? Neither was Dr. Phlox.

They were horrible but they weren't the main characters. Tilly is like the most important character on the show now. Wut?
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
61,369
First season was pretty good. Loved it. Season 2 has been total garbage so far. Never thought I'd say this but... in retrospect, Neelix wasn't so bad, was he? Neither was Dr. Phlox.

They were horrible but they weren't the main characters. Tilly is like the most important character on the show now. Wut?

Neelix was fucking atrocious. He's the worst Star Trek character of all time besides Wesley Crusher. For the record, he was generally hated for being a Mary Sue.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
61,369
I haven't seen anything past the first episode of season 2. I only saw it because it was put on Youtube for free.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2009
Messages
2,313
This weeks episode

Disco haters: ... crickets
Dude, I HATE deus ex machina's. Then they chose the "we wuz kangs" direction to take that arc? Blah. Didn't even get to see my favorite character (engineer chick who's a dickhead) be mean to anyone.
 

Draax

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
5,213
Oh no haters. Discovery was renewed for season 3. Oh and they are calling the season 2 launch a massive success that far exceeded expectations in subscription numbers and fan feedback.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
35,476
Then go read the damn posts about what's wrong and then you'll be sure what "all the hate is about." It isn't a good series. It would be mediocre as a science fiction series due to writing issues. However, it's even worse as a Star Trek series.

Disagree completely on most (but not all) of what you wrote.
  • The writing is abysmal. There are many examples of this in the thread. Season 2's premiere episode alone has two HUGE issues.[/quote]
I think the writing has been quite good. Sure it has some plot holes, but so has every single Star Trek, or any show at all for that matter in the history of television. Thus far (and I am all caught up awaiting the next episode tomorrow) the only episode I didn't like was S01E07 (not adding any further spoilers) which was atrociously bad.


  • The show portrays all white men as villains.
  • The other men, and white men who aren't villains are spineless or totally incompetent at their jobs.
Incorrect. It portrays men as real life flawed human beings, struggling with their own demons as they are trying to do their jobs. Paul Stamets is a brilliant scientist who makes the tech in this series work. Sarek is a top Diplomat (can Vulcans be white males?) Even Ash Tyler, who is very troubled by his traumatic situation is a strong male character dealing with some serious shit. Also sounds like you haven't watched season 2, but Captain Pike is really shaping up to be a heroic male lead. None of the male characters are perfect, however. Sarek proves to have difficulty being a father, Stamets may be a bit cold and obsessed with his work, etc. IMHO that makes them more real. The stereotypical hero male doesn't exist in real life, so why should the character exist in a Star Trek series? It makes the show better and more realistic to see all of the characters, both male and female struggle with their weaknesses as well as their strengths.

It's not as if the female characters are without their weaknesses either. Tilly has serious self confidence issues. Burnham struggles with authority and knowing when she is and isn't right, and is dealing with the childhood trauma from losing her parents and being raised as a Vulcan, and trying to adapt back into human culture and norms. All the characters, male and female are complicated, messy and dealing with their own shit as well as being officers and living up to their responsibilities. This makes the show good, and more real.


  • The ensemble cast formula was thrown out. This might work if the main character could carry the show. It can't.
I'll agree with you here. I wish they hadn't made the series "The Michael Burnham Story" and focused equally on the team like in previous series. That said, given that they did what they did with the story, I think Sonequa Martin-Green does a great job as a lead.


  • Michael Burnham is a terrible "Mary Sue" of a character who is better than everyone at everything.
  • Michael Burnham isn't relatable or even likable.
These I'll disagree with. She is great at some things (science, martial arts) based on her Vulcan training, but is terrible at others. Kind of reminds you of TOS Spock. I don't have a problem with her characters likeability.


  • Better characters than Michael Burnham or potentially good characters are underutilized. They are window dressing at best.
I'm not sure what you are talking about here. I haven't felt this.



  • Legacy Star Trek characters are portrayed entirely differently than they were in their original versions. This creates problems with Star Trek Canon.
  • Klingon redesign creates issues with Star Trek canon.
  • Star Trek Canon violated repeatedly.
I'm totally on board with you here. This has bothered and continues to bother me, especially the Klingon bit. (this bothered me in the JJ Abrams film reboot too). That said, there aren't too many legacy characters thus far. Sarek, Spock and Pike are the only ones I can think of, and we've only seen a child version of Spock thus far. Pike only played a limited role in canon. The original pilot he starred in was scrapped, and he was replaced with Shatners Kirk. he came back in a different role as a wheelchair bound, traumatized and broken man, but how do we know from canon what he was like as a Captain before that?

Sarek may be different, but we are also seeing him as a much younger man in this series than in other ones. People change over time.



  • Visual elements introduced which make no logical sense and work against established Star Trek lore. These elements are made to be flashy but often make no sense. The snow globe pods are an example of this.
The pods were a little silly, I agree, but I disagree that they were a big enough issue to totally ruin the show.


  • Alternative Copyright License in use by Paramount and Bad Robot (Who produces the show despite CBS's ownership) creates a problem as everything must be 25% different from its original version. This is one of the most significant sources of issues behind the production of this show.

Yet it is a CBS all access exclusive (at least in the U.S.) Are you sure about this, or are you guessing here?

There are far more issues than those I've mentioned but that's the most egregious in my opinion. My comment about legacy characters being mishandled isn't strong enough. Changing Spock into a sociopath, hipster douche and a sister fucker (I am not joking) is an egregious error on the writers part that can't be forgiven.

Uhh. I ahve watched every episode thus far (S02E07 is due out tomorrow I think) I must have missed this episode? Or have you been watching some sort of sexy Discovery fan fiction or something? While Spock is discussed a lot, I don't even remember Ethan Peck who portrays him as an adult appearing on screen yet (except maybe in some log entry, cant remember). The child version was in an episode in a flashback scene, but that's all I can remember right now. I went back over the episode synopsis on Wikipedia just to make sure I'm not forgetting something, but I don't see anything there either.

Sarek, Spock's father is also seriously altered and mishandled. The comments about how men are consistently portrayed is an example of propping up women at the expense of men. This isn't how equality is achieved. In fact, this kind of bullshit is ultimately divisive as it pits one group against another. Star Trek never had to resort to this and was always way ahead of its time as far as being progressive goes.

Again, Sarek is a younger man than I've seen him in previous shows. People change over time. I'm not convinced he is completely out of character.

That clear enough?

As mud.

I think a lot of people just saw the news reports that this was a "SJW" series when it was under development, and started watching it with a prejudiced eye, and just can't allow themselves to get over that initial impression.

Is it the best Star Trek I've seen? Certainly not. But it is far from the worst, with a compelling story, and intriguing characters, and I am enjoying it almost enough to forgive what they did with the Klingons. (That said, it's not like Klingons haven't changed before...)


EDIT


I googled the terms "discovery spock incest". Only thing I found was an article about how someone wrote a fan theory about their past being romantic, and how most others hate that theory. Best I can find, nothing like this has appeared in the show, which matches my recollection.

In fact, that theory has officially been shot down.

The schism between the two likely has more to do with that Vulcan Academy thing which I will not go into more detail about for spoiler reasons.

Maybe your prejudices aren't based on actually watching the show but rather reading what others are writing about it? Maybe you'd like it if you actually watched it rather than hate-reading theories and reviews?
 

Draax

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
5,213
Do you know, how I know, that some of you haters don't actually watch DISCO? Last nights episode was the first episode Spock was in (unless he is the red angel). Yet people were criticizing the show for an "emo Spock" which is impossible to determine based on his current state of mind and the fact that he hadn't actually appeared on the show.
 

Tamlin_WSGF

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
3,069
Do you know, how I know, that some of you haters don't actually watch DISCO? Last nights episode was the first episode Spock was in (unless he is the red angel). Yet people were criticizing the show for an "emo Spock" which is impossible to determine based on his current state of mind and the fact that he hadn't actually appeared on the show.

Actually Spock have already appeared on the show as a kid with serious emotional problems. Remember the scene when Mikael first was introduced to Spock?
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
13,172
Do you know, how I know, that some of you haters don't actually watch DISCO? Last nights episode was the first episode Spock was in (unless he is the red angel). Yet people were criticizing the show for an "emo Spock" which is impossible to determine based on his current state of mind and the fact that he hadn't actually appeared on the show.
Oh no! You found me out, you're a genius man!

Do you know the definition of insanity? To continue watching something that I hate.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
13,172
I think a lot of people just saw the news reports that this was a "SJW" series when it was under development, and started watching it with a prejudiced eye, and just can't allow themselves to get over that initial impression.
I had zero bias going into the first episode of this, I wanted a good Star Trek, I was excited for it, I was hopeful, didn't read any reviews, until after the fact. But you're right about one thing: I'll never get over what I saw.

and I am enjoying it almost enough to forgive what they did with the Klingons. (That said, it's not like Klingons haven't changed before...)
This shows exactly that you understand very little about why we hate the show. The external appearance of races is the least of it. It is how characters are written, and how they behave, including but not limited to the klingons.
 

JMCB

Gawd
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
650
I enjoy watching the show, but it does have some issues. Michael seems to have the answers to a lot of problems, and Stamuts has that infused tarmo (?) blood that just seems to fix all the others. I do like Pike as a character, and I wish he would be confirmed for the next season as well.
 

Draax

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
5,213
Meh .. either way, you have to love the fact that there are currently 2 "Trek'ish" shows airing at the same time. Disco and Orville, we are spoiled.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,717
Some people enjoy hating things. Micro analyzing and critiquing everything. They cannot fathom that anyone else could enjoy something that they desire to hate. It’s sad ... and I’m glad I don’t have to live like that.

View attachment 139120

It is not a desire to hate, it really is that bad. I attempted to watch the first 10 minutes of the available episode and that was that, 10 minutes of my life I will never get back. This is someone who not only enjoys the other shows and the new movies but, I read 100's of the books as well over the years.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
35,476
It is not a desire to hate, it really is that bad. I attempted to watch the first 10 minutes of the available episode and that was that, 10 minutes of my life I will never get back. This is someone who not only enjoys the other shows and the new movies but, I read 100's of the books as well over the years.


Well, I guess different people like different things.

I'm a lifelong Trek fan. I got started with The Motion Picture and watched all of the TNG films. I even liked Star Trek IV. Star Trek V was just too much though. Couldn't stand that.

I could never get into the ToS TV series though. I found it too goofy, and I didn't really find Kirk believable as an officer.

When TNG came around I was hooked. I consider TNG, DS9 and Voyager my "core" Trek. Voyager was kind of goofy by comparison, but still satisfied the addiction.

Enterprise was OK. I didn't love it, but it didn't feel terribly Trek like. Maybe it was the theme song :p It was still enjoyable though.

I hated the JJ Abrams remake films. I mean, it was cool to see other actors do a great job at portraying the original crew. Chris Pine got everything, even got the chair pose right. In the end, the changed Klingons, tech that looked less like like Star Trek and more like transparent CSI touch screens, an excessive over use of handheld shaky cameras and artificial lens flares, and the alternate universe where Vulcan is destroyed just kind of ruined them for me.

Discovery turned me off at first. I didn't like what they did to the Klingons. The story is compelling though, and it is well acted, so I have learned to get over that detail. Is it my favorite Trek? Not by a long shot. It's OK. I'm not going to sing it's praises, but I enjoy it enough to keep watching.

I just think there is so much hate and hyperbole in here that it is silly.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,717
Well, I guess different people like different things.

I'm a lifelong Trek fan. I got started with The Motion Picture and watched all of the TNG films. I even liked Star Trek IV. Star Trek V was just too much though. Couldn't stand that.

I could never get into the ToS TV series though. I found it too goofy, and I didn't really find Kirk believable as an officer.

When TNG came around I was hooked. I consider TNG, DS9 and Voyager my "core" Trek. Voyager was kind of goofy by comparison, but still satisfied the addiction.

Enterprise was OK. I didn't love it, but it didn't feel terribly Trek like. Maybe it was the theme song :p It was still enjoyable though.

I hated the JJ Abrams remake films. I mean, it was cool to see other actors do a great job at portraying the original crew. Chris Pine got everything, even got the chair pose right. In the end, the changed Klingons, tech that looked less like like Star Trek and more like transparent CSI touch screens, an excessive over use of handheld shaky cameras and artificial lens flares, and the alternate universe where Vulcan is destroyed just kind of ruined them for me.

Discovery turned me off at first. I didn't like what they did to the Klingons. The story is compelling though, and it is well acted, so I have learned to get over that detail. Is it my favorite Trek? Not by a long shot. It's OK. I'm not going to sing it's praises, but I enjoy it enough to keep watching.

I just think there is so much hate and hyperbole in here that it is silly.

I never had an issue with JJ Abrams stuff and the alternate universe because I have read the books over the years. (If you have read the books, you know what I mean.) Newer authors are just bad but, older authors and their books from the 80's, 90's, and early 2000's were mostly all really good to really great.
 

Catscratch

n00b
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
14
I couldn't care less about the wolverine with pointy ears, sorry unshaved spock being emo. My biggest gripe is listening to the mutineer michael's personal log on every episode opening. I like captains being leads on ST shows. I'm a bigot in that way. That's why I enjoyed the last episode because Pike was highlighted.
 
Top