Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2017 8:54:22 GMT -7
|
|
|
|
Post by JAFisher44 on Jun 19, 2017 13:58:53 GMT -7
Well, with absolutely no qualifiers I have to go with The Orville. Of course I will probably watch both but I certainly won't be paying for Discovery.
|
|
|
|
Post by brickwall on Jun 19, 2017 14:40:27 GMT -7
I probably won't watch either, but I'll put my money on The Orville.
|
|
|
|
Post by startrekguy on Jun 19, 2017 17:24:41 GMT -7
I will watch both. But I wont be paying for Discovery. I like the look of the Orville.
|
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Jun 19, 2017 18:55:07 GMT -7
So long as Seth tries to get "real" sci fi ideas into the show and keeps the humor away from Family Guy/American Dad stupid, I'll watch The Orville.
I'll probably TRY to watch Discovery's premier (unless it really sucks) but, will never pay for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by kaisernathan1701 on Jun 19, 2017 20:30:02 GMT -7
I'll watch Both  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2017 3:25:19 GMT -7
I plan to watch the first episode of both. I do not think I will pay CBS for the privilege of watching Discovery though.
|
|
|
|
Post by tinker on Jun 20, 2017 12:16:27 GMT -7
Orville - hands down.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2017 6:02:00 GMT -7
I think one issue I have with Discovery (other than the Klingons) is that it is set "10 years before Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise". But 10 years before Kirk the Enterprise was in the fleet under command of Robert April. I have found two sources (she was launched in 2245, and Kirk took command in 2265).
Yet another continuity error (Star Trek is full of them) or Kelvin universe? If it's Kelvin, I have no use for it. If it's yet another continuity error... The writers are lazy, and probably won't give us a good product.
Sigh... we could have had "Star Trek: Excelsior"
|
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Jun 21, 2017 8:13:59 GMT -7
Technically, the TOS E would have been under Pike based on "The Menagerie" (or The Cage). April was only mentioned in the animated series (semi-cannon).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2017 8:54:21 GMT -7
Nothing is cannon in Star Trek. You just can't put it all together and make it work. But that's a totally different topic.
I would argue that TAS is more cannon than Kelvin Universe... but not here (that's another topic). StarTrek.com states that Enterprise was launched in 2245, and that the ship was captained first by Robert April, then Christopher Pike, then James Kirk.
A series about NCC-2000 would have created a nice bridge between the Movie era on into TNG. One story arc would be the Excelsior slowly moving from top-of-the-line, most advanced ship in the fleet to work-horse, and finally to second-line duty as the (really ugly) TNG ships begin rolling off the production lines.
Unfortunately, CBS rarely listens to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by rarcher on Jun 21, 2017 10:02:01 GMT -7
Nothing is cannon in Star Trek. You just can't put it all together and make it work. But that's a totally different topic. I would argue that TAS is more cannon than Kelvin Universe... but not here (that's another topic). StarTrek.com states that Enterprise was launched in 2245, and that the ship was captained first by Robert April, then Christopher Pike, then James Kirk. A series about NCC-2000 would have created a nice bridge between the Movie era on into TNG. One story arc would be the Excelsior slowly moving from top-of-the-line, most advanced ship in the fleet to work-horse, and finally to second-line duty as the (really ugly) TNG ships begin rolling off the production lines. Unfortunately, CBS rarely listens to me. Ive said it once i'll say it again give me this! and/or also give me a miniseries of the Ent-c ending with a heroic no holds bar death episode tying into Yesterday's enterprise and then the outright final battle and capture/destruction.... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2017 12:59:13 GMT -7
▲▲▲▲▲
Ezzakly.
|
|
|
|
Post by JAFisher44 on Jun 21, 2017 18:42:51 GMT -7
I think one issue I have with Discovery (other than the Klingons) is that it is set "10 years before Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise". But 10 years before Kirk the Enterprise was in the fleet under command of Robert April. I have found two sources (she was launched in 2245, and Kirk took command in 2265). Yet another continuity error (Star Trek is full of them) I'm confused. What is the continuity error? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2017 6:46:27 GMT -7
I have explained the issue, but I cannot make you understand.
But while I'm at it, what happened to the race genetically created to sense death? They are not around in TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, or VOY... did they all die in a fit of irony?
The Klingons... They looked like "Klingons" in ENT, TMP, etc... but not in DIS. Even their ships appear to have changed. Are these a sub-set of Klingons - maybe dark-and brooding GOTH klingons?
How did we go from Super-Tech bridge to low-tech bridge in 10 years? Or... If DIS takes place 10 years before Kirk (when the Constitution Class Cruiser NCC-1701 Enterprise has been in active service for ten years), why do the Bridges of Discovery and Enterprise look like they are based on completely different tech from completely different eras?
The little insignia they all wear on their uniforms, and is the show's logo, is the insignia for NCC-1701. StarFleet did not adopt that as the insignia for the fleet until after Kirk's first five-year mission aboard Enterprise. Until that time all ships and bases had a unique crest or insignia (like a unit patch in the military).
"Starfleet does not fire first". Ain't no Starfleet ten years before Enterprise (1701). It's still the United Earth Space Probe Agency, and remains so until the end of Pike's mission and into the beginning of Kirk's.
I imagine I'll spot one or two more minor continuity issues when I actually watch the Premier.
|
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Jun 22, 2017 7:29:20 GMT -7
They all sensed death and committed suicide - of course!
|
|
|
|
Post by JAFisher44 on Jun 22, 2017 19:34:26 GMT -7
I have explained the issue, but I cannot make you understand. No problem, where did you explain it? I'll go check it out! How did we go from Super-Tech bridge to low-tech bridge in 10 years? Or... If DIS takes place 10 years before Kirk (when the Constitution Class Cruiser NCC-1701 Enterprise has been in active service for ten years), why do the Bridges of Discovery and Enterprise look like they are based on completely different tech from completely different eras? This doesn't bother me. I have no problem with them retconning the consoles and other tech to be more believable to a modern audience. In fact, I've been somewhat disappointed in other series where TOS era Connies were featured (DS9, Enterprise) when they didn't retcon the tech. The little insignia they all wear on their uniforms, and is the show's logo, is the insignia for NCC-1701. StarFleet did not adopt that as the insignia for the fleet until after Kirk's first five-year mission aboard Enterprise. Until that time all ships and bases had a unique crest or insignia (like a unit patch in the military). I agree with this. In fact I was disappointed when they abandoned the unique insignia and expanded the Enterprise's to all of starfleet. Unique insignia were fun and interesting, not to mention useful in identifying ship assignments on an otherwise uniform uniform. "Starfleet does not fire first". Ain't no Starfleet ten years before Enterprise (1701). It's still the United Earth Space Probe Agency, and remains so until the end of Pike's mission and into the beginning of Kirk's. This is debatable. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2017 8:47:45 GMT -7
I have explained the issue, but I cannot make you understand. No problem, where did you explain it? I'll go check it out! Discovery MAY take place 10 years before Kirk commanded Enterprise, but not 10 years before NCC-1701 was in service (she is already 10 years old in the time of Discovery). How did we go from Super-Tech bridge to low-tech bridge in 10 years? Or... If DIS takes place 10 years before Kirk (when the Constitution Class Cruiser NCC-1701 Enterprise has been in active service for ten years), why do the Bridges of Discovery and Enterprise look like they are based on completely different tech from completely different eras? This doesn't bother me. I have no problem with them retconning the consoles and other tech to be more believable to a modern audience. In fact, I've been somewhat disappointed in other series where TOS era Connies were featured (DS9, Enterprise) when they didn't retcon the tech. Well, I do have a problem with it. Cleaning up the bridge and making it less clunky is fine. Maybe even going to touch-screens in place of all the switches would not bother me much. Going all out iStore is bone-headed. "Starfleet does not fire first". Ain't no Starfleet ten years before Enterprise (1701). It's still the United Earth Space Probe Agency, and remains so until the end of Pike's mission and into the beginning of Kirk's. This is debatable. Clearly it is, or we would not be having much of a discussion. Even Axanar got it wrong. Very simply, fans (like the people on this forum) have been paying the bills for Star Trek for half a century. We watch the shows, buy the licensed merch, buy the VHS/DVD/BluRays (then buy them again in the remastered versions), and we pay to see the movies. In return for our inexplicable loyalty, we are given poop (JJ-Trek) and are told it's Caviar. Look at the direction taken with Axanar. They made the old uniforms work. They made the pre-Constitution ships work (and look darn good). The Klingons look great and seem to act more like John Ford Klingons. From what little I have been able to dig up on USS Ares' interior, it looks a lot like the TOS enterprise.The result was that the fans forked over about a million dollars to help pay for production. And CBS said "Hell no". Instead we get "My race can sense death" and "But I wanna be a Vulcan!", and a ship that's uglier than Nixon's ass that was derived from rejected concept art. Sorry, but I'm tired of taking it the shorts from Paramount and CBS. I'll give Disco a chance, but I'm not going to buy "All Access" just to watch it. And I have a feeling we'll be seeing a lot of this on the boards:  |
|
|
|
Post by Gorn on Jun 23, 2017 19:58:54 GMT -7
It's time for something like "the Orville". I'll check Discovery when it's free. CBS isn't getting one cent from me. Particularly when it's JJJerk stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by JAFisher44 on Jun 24, 2017 0:15:17 GMT -7
Discovery MAY take place 10 years before Kirk commanded Enterprise, but not 10 years before NCC-1701 was in service (she is already 10 years old in the time of Discovery). I am pretty sure that quote, "Ten years before Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise" is just their way of saying, "Ten years before the original series." I mean if you are going to interpret the "before the Enterprise" line that literally then why not the Kirk and Spock part? 10 years before Kirk would be 2223 and 10 years before Spock would be 2220. Also, I don't think that a part of an advertising slogan can be considered "canon". Well, I do have a problem with it. Cleaning up the bridge and making it less clunky is fine. Maybe even going to touch-screens in place of all the switches would not bother me much. Going all out iStore is bone-headed. I guess it's a matter of opinion. I feel that the reason the sets in TOS look as they do is because they were built in the 60's for a TV show. Retconning them to a more believable tech level doesn't change the story or the characters and it makes it more accessible to new modern viewers. Now I'd like for the ships to look the same or very close externally. But again, this is my opinion and others may vary. Sorry, but I'm tired of taking it the shorts from Paramount and CBS. I'll give Disco a chance, but I'm not going to buy "All Access" just to watch it. I agree. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2017 5:22:21 GMT -7
I agree. By "Ten years before Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise", they are saying "10 years before the Original series". And I'll concede that they are attempting to be creative with a new ship. But there are several ships in the series, and none really look like the constitution class that is the top-of-the line ship of the day.
I also completely agree that the reason the interior of the ship in TOS looks like it looks is because it was built in the 1960's. But I dislike the glam-bridge. I really prefer the direction Axanar took with refined and cleaned up interiors rather then all-new super-glass-and-plastic interiors.
|
|
|
|
Post by JAFisher44 on Jun 24, 2017 13:32:29 GMT -7
I agree. By "Ten years before Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise", they are saying "10 years before the Original series". And I'll concede that they are attempting to be creative with a new ship. But there are several ships in the series, and none really look like the constitution class that is the top-of-the line ship of the day. I agree I would prefer something that looks like it would fit in with established canon ships from that era. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffwright on Jun 25, 2017 14:22:49 GMT -7
Is that a transporter room or a game show set?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2017 18:44:13 GMT -7
It can be both...
|
|
zaarin7
Lieutenant
I'm up for Vassal/Skype gameing.
Posts: 150 
|
Post by zaarin7 on Jul 17, 2017 19:16:42 GMT -7
I got a good laugh out of Orville and I really needed it after the past weekend.
|
|
