Wanna-B-Fanboy Posted October 23, 2017 Report Share Posted October 23, 2017 19 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said: Awesome! I am really enjoying this series and looking forward to next week! The Unknown Poster and SPuDS 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrostyWinnipeg Posted October 23, 2017 Report Share Posted October 23, 2017 How we miss this? Logan007 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpeedFlex27 Posted October 25, 2017 Report Share Posted October 25, 2017 (edited) On 10/16/2017 at 11:46 AM, The Unknown Poster said: Raine Wilson was great as Harry Mudd. When Saru asked the computer to display the most decorated Captains, it listed Robert April, Jonthan Archer, Philippa Georgieou, Matt Decker and Chris Pike. This "canonizes" Robert April for the first time (first Captain of the Enterprise). April had previously appeared in The Animated Series and in the comic prequel to STID (both pseudo-canon). Matt Decker one of the great Captains? Considering Spock stopped him from committing suicide with the Enterprise against the Planet Eater? He had no chance of defeating the machine & yet was going to sacrifice the lives of everyone onboard the ship after he had already lost his entire crew. Edited October 25, 2017 by SpeedFlex27 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted October 25, 2017 Author Report Share Posted October 25, 2017 8 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said: Matt Decker one of the great Captains? Considering Spock stopped him from committing suicide with the Enterprise against the Planet Eater? He had no chance of defeating the machine & yet was going to sacrifice the lives of everyone onboard the ship after he had already lost his entire crew. Discovery takes place before that episode of TOS: The Doomsday Machine. In that episode, Matt Decker was a Commodore who's ship came under attack by the Planet Killer. He beamed his crew to safety, or so he thought, on the planet below. The Planet Killer destroyed the planet, killing the crew and essentially driving Decker mad. While he did take command of the Enterprise, it turns out his plan was the correct one. He stole a shuttle and exploded it inside the Planet Killer, causing a drop in power. That gave Kirk the idea of using Decker's damaged ship to create a larger explosion, destroying the Planet Killer. And even though we know what Decker did in that episode, Kirk recorded that he gave his life in the line of duty. A novel later established that Kirk kept the details cloudy and the implication was that Decker piloted his ship into the Planet Killer and destroyed it rather than Kirk piloting the ship (and being beamed off at the last second). FrostyWinnipeg 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrostyWinnipeg Posted October 25, 2017 Report Share Posted October 25, 2017 2 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said: Discovery takes place before that episode of TOS: The Doomsday Machine. In that episode, Matt Decker was a Commodore who's ship came under attack by the Planet Killer. He beamed his crew to safety, or so he thought, on the planet below. The Planet Killer destroyed the planet, killing the crew and essentially driving Decker mad. While he did take command of the Enterprise, it turns out his plan was the correct one. He stole a shuttle and exploded it inside the Planet Killer, causing a drop in power. That gave Kirk the idea of using Decker's damaged ship to create a larger explosion, destroying the Planet Killer. And even though we know what Decker did in that episode, Kirk recorded that he gave his life in the line of duty. A novel later established that Kirk kept the details cloudy and the implication was that Decker piloted his ship into the Planet Killer and destroyed it rather than Kirk piloting the ship (and being beamed off at the last second). And William Windom owned that role. The Unknown Poster 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted October 25, 2017 Author Report Share Posted October 25, 2017 1 hour ago, FrostyWinnipeg said: And William Windom owned that role. Interestingly, I read up a little about that episode (Im a bit of a Trek nerd) and it was originally written for someone else and the role was "stronger". For example, instead of Decker being overcome with grief, he was more enraged and wanting revenge. it was envisioned as a Moby **** story. They also pulled back from of his lines so he didnt seem like a stronger character than Kirk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpeedFlex27 Posted October 26, 2017 Report Share Posted October 26, 2017 10 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said: Discovery takes place before that episode of TOS: The Doomsday Machine. In that episode, Matt Decker was a Commodore who's ship came under attack by the Planet Killer. He beamed his crew to safety, or so he thought, on the planet below. The Planet Killer destroyed the planet, killing the crew and essentially driving Decker mad. While he did take command of the Enterprise, it turns out his plan was the correct one. He stole a shuttle and exploded it inside the Planet Killer, causing a drop in power. That gave Kirk the idea of using Decker's damaged ship to create a larger explosion, destroying the Planet Killer. And even though we know what Decker did in that episode, Kirk recorded that he gave his life in the line of duty. A novel later established that Kirk kept the details cloudy and the implication was that Decker piloted his ship into the Planet Killer and destroyed it rather than Kirk piloting the ship (and being beamed off at the last second). It's hard to keep track of the timeline sometimes. The Unknown Poster 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpeedFlex27 Posted October 27, 2017 Report Share Posted October 27, 2017 Next Star Trek series please make it out being in the 25th or 26th century please. These prequels can be confusing. Especially with 2 universes thanks to JJ Abrams. Logan007 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigseye Posted October 27, 2017 Report Share Posted October 27, 2017 As a life long Trek fan, if not for Jason Isaacs I wouldn't watch this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpeedFlex27 Posted October 27, 2017 Report Share Posted October 27, 2017 28 minutes ago, pigseye said: As a life long Trek fan, if not for Jason Isaacs I wouldn't watch this. I think the series is far better than one actor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigseye Posted October 27, 2017 Report Share Posted October 27, 2017 24 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said: I think the series is far better than one actor. Isaacs is the only one with any acting chops, the rest are hard to find believable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrostyWinnipeg Posted October 27, 2017 Report Share Posted October 27, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, pigseye said: As a life long Trek fan, if not for Jason Isaacs I wouldn't watch this. As he given out his signature line yet? Nothing comes to me as something he's said more then once. Edited October 27, 2017 by FrostyWinnipeg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logan007 Posted October 27, 2017 Report Share Posted October 27, 2017 This show is a love hate relationship with me. Somethings I like, somethings just seem so stupid. I still hate the Klingons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted October 27, 2017 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2017 13 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said: Next Star Trek series please make it out being in the 25th or 26th century please. These prequels can be confusing. Especially with 2 universes thanks to JJ Abrams. I detest the idea of going that far into the future. Star Trek is science fiction, not fantasy. It works because it's us extrapolated into the future. But the further you get from "now" the less grounded and connected it is. By Voyager time we had tremendous technology. Going another 100-200 years beyond and every ship should be crewed by Holograms and commanded telepathically. No drama in that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted October 27, 2017 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2017 11 hours ago, FrostyWinnipeg said: As he given out his signature line yet? Nothing comes to me as something he's said more then once. His line is "Go". lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted October 27, 2017 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2017 11 hours ago, pigseye said: Isaacs is the only one with any acting chops, the rest are hard to find believable. Really? I find it the best acted ensemble of the franchise. If you go back to TNG, their first year (even two) was pretty rough. Any series with Stewart and Spiner can be great though. But it was once that cast sort of "got" their characters that the chemistry really shown threw. I think Discovery is way ahead of the other series' in acting, depth of character and stories. And can only get better as they develop more chemistry and the "voice" of the characters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted October 27, 2017 Report Share Posted October 27, 2017 5 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said: I detest the idea of going that far into the future. Star Trek is science fiction, not fantasy. It works because it's us extrapolated into the future. But the further you get from "now" the less grounded and connected it is. By Voyager time we had tremendous technology. Going another 100-200 years beyond and every ship should be crewed by Holograms and commanded telepathically. No drama in that. The future doesn’t necessarily have to go in a linear trajectory forward in terms of technological advancement. You could introduce some kind of disaster or event that has devastated or collapsed the Federation and give it more of an edgier feel. Would it still be Star Trek without the Federation? Probably not, but you could have the show trying to rebuild it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted October 27, 2017 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2017 1 minute ago, Rich said: The future doesn’t necessarily have to go in a linear trajectory forward in terms of technological advancement. You could introduce some kind of disaster or event that has devastated or collapsed the Federation and give it more of an edgier feel. Would it still be Star Trek without the Federation? Probably not, but you could have the show trying to rebuild it. Thats the other idea I've seen. But if the idea is to create a scenario to send the Federation tech back to the TOS era, just do a TOS era series. I dont begrudge some fans their desires but I has always perplexed me the reflex that Star Trek must always go further and further into the future. There is so much open space in the history of Trek that would be fun to fill in. My personal desire for the new series was Captain April (brand new just-launched Enterprise 1701) or an Enterprise B series (still have potential cameo's for TOS cast and the series could happen in the wake of James Kirk's death with the first "new" Enterprise with a new crew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrostyWinnipeg Posted October 27, 2017 Report Share Posted October 27, 2017 (edited) 53 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said: I detest the idea of going that far into the future. Star Trek is science fiction, not fantasy. It works because it's us extrapolated into the future. But the further you get from "now" the less grounded and connected it is. By Voyager time we had tremendous technology. Going another 100-200 years beyond and every ship should be crewed by Holograms and commanded telepathically. No drama in that. It could take place 30 after TNG. With the sets and FX of today it'll look like the future. Worf will look different tho Edited October 27, 2017 by FrostyWinnipeg The Unknown Poster 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted October 27, 2017 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2017 6 minutes ago, FrostyWinnipeg said: It could take place 30 after TNG. With the sets and FX of today it'll look like the future. Worf will look different tho Dont get me wrong, good writers and a good idea trumps everything. But I like the idea of being closer to "us" than going beyond. Although I also liked the idea of a Temporal Investigations series that jumped around. But I imagine it would be expensive. Fuller's original pitch for Discovery was to explore different eras every season. So the current Discovery era, then TOS and so on and so forth up to TNG and beyond. CBS said they'd greenlight season 1 and take it from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigseye Posted October 27, 2017 Report Share Posted October 27, 2017 1 hour ago, The Unknown Poster said: Really? I find it the best acted ensemble of the franchise. If you go back to TNG, their first year (even two) was pretty rough. Any series with Stewart and Spiner can be great though. But it was once that cast sort of "got" their characters that the chemistry really shown threw. I think Discovery is way ahead of the other series' in acting, depth of character and stories. And can only get better as they develop more chemistry and the "voice" of the characters. Didn't they replace all the writers after the first year of TNG? Thought I heard that somewhere before. Maybe the Discovery will pick up but I don't think it will hold my interest that long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrostyWinnipeg Posted October 27, 2017 Report Share Posted October 27, 2017 48 minutes ago, pigseye said: Didn't they replace all the writers after the first year of TNG? Thought I heard that somewhere before. First year of TNG was more like TOS then any other Trek season post-TOS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpeedFlex27 Posted October 27, 2017 Report Share Posted October 27, 2017 7 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said: I detest the idea of going that far into the future. Star Trek is science fiction, not fantasy. It works because it's us extrapolated into the future. But the further you get from "now" the less grounded and connected it is. By Voyager time we had tremendous technology. Going another 100-200 years beyond and every ship should be crewed by Holograms and commanded telepathically. No drama in that. Okay, I can accept that. Just stop with the prequels after this series. I remember on Enterprise how the ship just had hull plating & it couldn't kick anyone's ass out there. People hated that show enough as it was. Making the Enterprise look weak in battle didn't help as well as the Vulcans being downright arrogant & unfriendly. Fans wanted to see the Enterprise out there making a name for itself. Not trying to avert battle because they'd be destroyed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrostyWinnipeg Posted October 27, 2017 Report Share Posted October 27, 2017 7 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said: By Voyager time we had tremendous technology. Only cause future Janeway brought it back with her Brandon Blue&Gold 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpeedFlex27 Posted October 28, 2017 Report Share Posted October 28, 2017 16 hours ago, Rich said: The future doesn’t necessarily have to go in a linear trajectory forward in terms of technological advancement. You could introduce some kind of disaster or event that has devastated or collapsed the Federation and give it more of an edgier feel. Would it still be Star Trek without the Federation? Probably not, but you could have the show trying to rebuild it. I agree. It wouldn't be Star Trek anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now