what he did show was what a modernized version of TOS could look like and thus when compared to TRIBBLE, shows just how badly CBS deviated from the style of the TOS without needing to.
As if anyone in Hollywood would WANT to make duplicates of TOS sets... Fan series do that because fanservice is life. DS9 did it because they were using a TOS episode as stock footage. Discovery? Enh... it's a new series thus it needs to look like something produced in 2017.
what he did show was what a modernized version of TOS could look like and thus when compared to TRIBBLE, shows just how badly CBS deviated from the style of the TOS without needing to.
As if anyone in Hollywood would WANT to make duplicates of TOS sets... Fan series do that because fanservice is life. DS9 did it because they were using a TOS episode as stock footage. Discovery? Enh... it's a new series thus it needs to look like something produced in 2017.
Then it should have been set in the era after Voyager and STO, or in the Kelvin timeline. Otherwise, CBS needs to come clean and say they are erasing TOS, and all of Star Trek from the past. I'm sure the fans will be thrilled to hear that.
Why? Because that suits the Trekkie fanbase? Why exactly do they have to produce something specifically to suit the tastes of (a frankly fickle) fanbase?
what he did show was what a modernized version of TOS could look like and thus when compared to TRIBBLE, shows just how badly CBS deviated from the style of the TOS without needing to.
As if anyone in Hollywood would WANT to make duplicates of TOS sets... Fan series do that because fanservice is life. DS9 did it because they were using a TOS episode as stock footage. Discovery? Enh... it's a new series thus it needs to look like something produced in 2017.
Then it should have been set in the era after Voyager and STO, or in the Kelvin timeline. Otherwise, CBS needs to come clean and say they are erasing TOS, and all of Star Trek from the past. I'm sure the fans will be thrilled to hear that.
Why? Because that suits the Trekkie fanbase? Why exactly do they have to produce something specifically to suit the tastes of (a frankly fickle) fanbase?
If they tried, they'd fail anyways. People would nitpick it to death even if they made a duplicate that was 99% identical.
Fun fact: that TOS ep of DS9 did not have the ability to make proper duplicates of the TOS sets, because certain parts of the TOS sets were made of custom plastics and the only manufacturer anywhere in the world who could make the materials needed no longer makes them.
But, more to the point, obsessively recreating things leads to what is known as a "creative straightjacket", IE you have a duplicate, and now to do anything with it you have to "break" it.
Axanar went down because Alec was committing copyright violation, attempting to use the Star Trek IP without a license in order to finance his own personal company. STC didn't do that - their "Kirkstarters" were always for the amount needed to produce the next episode, not to build something for themselves. I'm not sure how Phase II financed themselves, but I'm pretty doggone sure it wasn't through the sale of T-shirts and coffee bearing trademarked logos.
I know, you want to think he was some kind of Holy Savior because he managed to produce a 20-minute fan-film that actually had some good actors (who, you never mention, jumped ship when they realized what was going on), but you're pinning your hopes on entirely the wrong horse here.
I didn't see anyone here say this was the future of Star Trek or pinning their hopes on it.
Richard Hatch is dead (he played the Klingon General) so the likelihood of Axanar ever being completed is next to nil even though they are moving forward with it.
What makes Axanar relevant to this conversation is that even though the project was a violation due to Peters attempting to use the start-up money to create his own studio (not fair use by any measure), what he did show was what a modernized version of TOS could look like and thus when compared to TRIBBLE, shows just how badly CBS deviated from the style of the TOS without needing to.
They DID need to. The "TOS style" may appeal to us Trekkies. The "TOS style" might well be what Trekkies want; but Discovery CAN'T be that selective.
Honestly - I don't mean to sound offensive here but some people really need to take their Rose-tinted Trekkie Specs off. Like it or not, Discovery’s target audience undoubtedly includes the sort of people who were attracted to the last three movies. They are not producing something specifically for fans of the shows that came before.
And that is why it isn’t surprising that some think Axanar looked better. It was being produced specifically to appeal to Trekkies and I’d wager that 99% of the money Axanar raised was from Trekkies.
Difficult pill to swallow perhaps, but I don’t think TV shows – even streamed ones – are made with a particular fanbase in mind.
If it wasn't made with a fanbase in mind, why did they bother calling it Star Trek? Why not just do a completely new show called Discovery? Sorry, but the fact that they were using the Trek Franchise and IP, was because they wanted the existing fanbase. New show = New Fanbase -/+ possible high signups for their streaming service... That's what this has always been about all along: Getting subscribers for All Access
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Axanar went down because Alec was committing copyright violation, attempting to use the Star Trek IP without a license in order to finance his own personal company. STC didn't do that - their "Kirkstarters" were always for the amount needed to produce the next episode, not to build something for themselves. I'm not sure how Phase II financed themselves, but I'm pretty doggone sure it wasn't through the sale of T-shirts and coffee bearing trademarked logos.
I know, you want to think he was some kind of Holy Savior because he managed to produce a 20-minute fan-film that actually had some good actors (who, you never mention, jumped ship when they realized what was going on), but you're pinning your hopes on entirely the wrong horse here.
I didn't see anyone here say this was the future of Star Trek or pinning their hopes on it.
Richard Hatch is dead (he played the Klingon General) so the likelihood of Axanar ever being completed is next to nil even though they are moving forward with it.
What makes Axanar relevant to this conversation is that even though the project was a violation due to Peters attempting to use the start-up money to create his own studio (not fair use by any measure), what he did show was what a modernized version of TOS could look like and thus when compared to TRIBBLE, shows just how badly CBS deviated from the style of the TOS without needing to.
They DID need to. The "TOS style" may appeal to us Trekkies. The "TOS style" might well be what Trekkies want; but Discovery CAN'T be that selective.
Honestly - I don't mean to sound offensive here but some people really need to take their Rose-tinted Trekkie Specs off. Like it or not, Discovery’s target audience undoubtedly includes the sort of people who were attracted to the last three movies. They are not producing something specifically for fans of the shows that came before.
And that is why it isn’t surprising that some think Axanar looked better. It was being produced specifically to appeal to Trekkies and I’d wager that 99% of the money Axanar raised was from Trekkies.
Difficult pill to swallow perhaps, but I don’t think TV shows – even streamed ones – are made with a particular fanbase in mind.
If it wasn't made with a fanbase in mind, why did they bother calling it Star Trek? Why not just do a completely new show called Discovery? Sorry, but the fact that they were using the Trek Franchise and IP, was because they wanted the existing fanbase. New show = New Fanbase -/+ possible high signups for their streaming service... That's what this has always been about all along: Getting subscribers for All Access
Because some fans can suspend mismatches in continuity, for the sake of good storytelling.
Let's not paint the entire fanbase in such a broad brush. Some fans like Discovery already. Others are leery, but are willing to give it a shot for now. Others still are not happy with it.
Axanar went down because Alec was committing copyright violation, attempting to use the Star Trek IP without a license in order to finance his own personal company. STC didn't do that - their "Kirkstarters" were always for the amount needed to produce the next episode, not to build something for themselves. I'm not sure how Phase II financed themselves, but I'm pretty doggone sure it wasn't through the sale of T-shirts and coffee bearing trademarked logos.
I know, you want to think he was some kind of Holy Savior because he managed to produce a 20-minute fan-film that actually had some good actors (who, you never mention, jumped ship when they realized what was going on), but you're pinning your hopes on entirely the wrong horse here.
I didn't see anyone here say this was the future of Star Trek or pinning their hopes on it.
Richard Hatch is dead (he played the Klingon General) so the likelihood of Axanar ever being completed is next to nil even though they are moving forward with it.
What makes Axanar relevant to this conversation is that even though the project was a violation due to Peters attempting to use the start-up money to create his own studio (not fair use by any measure), what he did show was what a modernized version of TOS could look like and thus when compared to TRIBBLE, shows just how badly CBS deviated from the style of the TOS without needing to.
They DID need to. The "TOS style" may appeal to us Trekkies. The "TOS style" might well be what Trekkies want; but Discovery CAN'T be that selective.
Honestly - I don't mean to sound offensive here but some people really need to take their Rose-tinted Trekkie Specs off. Like it or not, Discovery’s target audience undoubtedly includes the sort of people who were attracted to the last three movies. They are not producing something specifically for fans of the shows that came before.
And that is why it isn’t surprising that some think Axanar looked better. It was being produced specifically to appeal to Trekkies and I’d wager that 99% of the money Axanar raised was from Trekkies.
Difficult pill to swallow perhaps, but I don’t think TV shows – even streamed ones – are made with a particular fanbase in mind.
If it wasn't made with a fanbase in mind, why did they bother calling it Star Trek? Why not just do a completely new show called Discovery? Sorry, but the fact that they were using the Trek Franchise and IP, was because they wanted the existing fanbase. New show = New Fanbase -/+ possible high signups for their streaming service... That's what this has always been about all along: Getting subscribers for All Access
Because some fans can suspend mismatches in continuity, for the sake of good storytelling.
I love love love the show. I grew up watching TOS with my dad and then TNG and so on. I watch Star Trek:??? daily. I float between various series. I see nothing wrong paying CBS for a franchise I love to watch. It's like the same people who couldn't bring themselves to subscribe to this game. I started subbing for 5.99 with commercials and upgrade to commercial free for 9.95, I spend more than that on coffee. It's well worth it to watch everything commercial free. I also get to watch my other favorite CBS shows commercial free too like NCIS, NCIS:New Orleans, Criminal Minds, Bull, etc. Would it be nice to see it on Netflix? Of course it would, but I can't fault CBS for trying to keep the money in-house either.
I also wouldn't expect the show to make their ship look like some 1960s thing. Technology has progressed since then and we need to keep it looking futuristic not for the purists but for future generations to become interested in watching it. It also has only been the pilot so far. We truly haven't seen where this is going yet but looks promising from previews.
I would pay and watch the series just to show you want more trek even if this trek isn't exactly what you want to see. If this flops, the likelihood you get something else is probably slim to none.
Gold Sub since March 2010
Lifetime Sub since June 2010
Axanar went down because Alec was committing copyright violation, attempting to use the Star Trek IP without a license in order to finance his own personal company. STC didn't do that - their "Kirkstarters" were always for the amount needed to produce the next episode, not to build something for themselves. I'm not sure how Phase II financed themselves, but I'm pretty doggone sure it wasn't through the sale of T-shirts and coffee bearing trademarked logos.
I know, you want to think he was some kind of Holy Savior because he managed to produce a 20-minute fan-film that actually had some good actors (who, you never mention, jumped ship when they realized what was going on), but you're pinning your hopes on entirely the wrong horse here.
I didn't see anyone here say this was the future of Star Trek or pinning their hopes on it.
Richard Hatch is dead (he played the Klingon General) so the likelihood of Axanar ever being completed is next to nil even though they are moving forward with it.
What makes Axanar relevant to this conversation is that even though the project was a violation due to Peters attempting to use the start-up money to create his own studio (not fair use by any measure), what he did show was what a modernized version of TOS could look like and thus when compared to TRIBBLE, shows just how badly CBS deviated from the style of the TOS without needing to.
They DID need to. The "TOS style" may appeal to us Trekkies. The "TOS style" might well be what Trekkies want; but Discovery CAN'T be that selective.
Honestly - I don't mean to sound offensive here but some people really need to take their Rose-tinted Trekkie Specs off. Like it or not, Discovery’s target audience undoubtedly includes the sort of people who were attracted to the last three movies. They are not producing something specifically for fans of the shows that came before.
And that is why it isn’t surprising that some think Axanar looked better. It was being produced specifically to appeal to Trekkies and I’d wager that 99% of the money Axanar raised was from Trekkies.
Difficult pill to swallow perhaps, but I don’t think TV shows – even streamed ones – are made with a particular fanbase in mind.
If it wasn't made with a fanbase in mind, why did they bother calling it Star Trek? Why not just do a completely new show called Discovery? Sorry, but the fact that they were using the Trek Franchise and IP, was because they wanted the existing fanbase. New show = New Fanbase -/+ possible high signups for their streaming service... That's what this has always been about all along: Getting subscribers for All Access
Because some fans can suspend mismatches in continuity, for the sake of good storytelling.
But that, too, is something TRIBBLE lacks.
Tricky to judge that based on two episodes.
A good story has a protagonist that is either likeable or relatable, Burnham is neither, in fact I'd say she's more of a villain than T'kuvma, and her motivation isn't entirely clear either. Did say she mutiny due to a bizarre use of logic? Was she just looking for suicidal payback? Who knows. And why would she make such a big deal about needing to take T'kuvma alive, and then
A good story has a protagonist that is either likeable or relatable, Burnham is neither, in fact I'd say she's more of a villain than T'kuvma, and her motivation isn't entirely clear either. Did say she mutiny due to a bizarre use of logic? Was she just looking for suicidal payback? Who knows.
I found her motivation to be clear. She wanted to save her Captain and her crew. It's clear she had issues she hadn't dealt with when it came to the Klingons. We saw as much in her reaction to the question about the Klingon raid when she was a child on Vulcan.
I just didn't think it was terribly clear, at least not in a way that made sense. And trying to save her Captain by attempting to take an action that would ensure the death of everyone onboard the Shenzhou is just incredibly bizarre thinking.
And why would she make such a big deal about needing to take T'kuvma alive, and then
shoot him dead anyway the first chance she gets?
You mean other than him killing her Captain and her friend?
That would indicate an emotional response, but she showed no emotion in her actions, she finished with her Klingon, turned to T'kuvma, and with a blank expression on her face switched her phaser to kill and fired. It reminded me more of a sociopath than someone who had just lost a close friend.
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
I just didn't think it was terribly clear, at least not in a way that made sense. And trying to save her Captain by attempting to take an action that would ensure the death of everyone onboard the Shenzhou is just incredibly bizarre thinking.
If she had been able to fire on the Klingons and they saw it as a sign of strength (as they do when Vulcans do the same) and the Klingons didn't return fire, how is that ensuring the death of everyone?
To expect a much larger Klingon vessel not to return fire is crazy imo, they are a warrior race that puts a lot of value in the honor of dieing in battle.
This is JJ-Kirk all over again. The writers want to make a "flawed, relatable, rulebreaking" character because that creates easy drama, and it's garbage. The whole complaint about "too perfect people" is ridiculous, and ignores the fact that these aren't average people at all. They're highly trained professionals who have passed an extremely stringent selection process. They're not going to snap under pressure, or make stupid easily avoided mistakes, or freak out emotionally, or buck the rules or create interpersonal drama. They just aren't. Anyone who was prone to such things would never make it through the selection and training process, and anyone who did somehow slip through the cracks would get to **** up like that exactly ONCE before being discharged or worse. They'd never make it to upper ranks like first officer on a starship that's for damned sure.
This is definitely not like JJTrek, because Kirk was right the entire time. He knew there was a threat. He wasn'T fast enough to save Vulcan, but he saved the Enterprise, and once he was back on board, he defeated Nero and avoided the destruction of Earth.
And he certainly doesn't crack at any point.
Burnham failed. Her suggestions weren'T followed, she attempts a mutiny and is arrested, and then when she later finally gets a chance at getting at least some plan gone, she doesn'T follow through and rather kills T'Kuvma for killing her Captain.
She failed. And consequently ,she isn't the youngest Captain of a Starship afterwards, she's in prison, and by the way, a war between Federation and Klingons is raging. Maybe it couldn't be stopped, maybe it could have been stopped, we don't know, but we can be fairly certain she feels responsible.
And that is a position from which the series will go on. She will have to redeem herself, in the eyes of her peers, but also in her own view. We'll see how well they'll do this in the show in the coming episodes, but I think this has a potential for a quite powerful story arc then already starting from an Utopian Ideal like, say, Picard.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
A good story has a protagonist that is either likeable or relatable, Burnham is neither, in fact I'd say she's more of a villain than T'kuvma, and her motivation isn't entirely clear either. Did say she mutiny due to a bizarre use of logic? Was she just looking for suicidal payback? Who knows.
I found her motivation to be clear. She wanted to save her Captain and her crew. It's clear she had issues she hadn't dealt with when it came to the Klingons. We saw as much in her reaction to the question about the Klingon raid when she was a child on Vulcan.
I just didn't think it was terribly clear, at least not in a way that made sense. And trying to save her Captain by attempting to take an action that would ensure the death of everyone onboard the Shenzhou is just incredibly bizarre thinking.
Only if you look at it from the stupid angle. From her perspective to NOT act would ensure that everyone on Shenzhou would be either dead or slaves. Why? because she realized the Klingons were not here to parley, they were there for blood.
And why would she make such a big deal about needing to take T'kuvma alive, and then
shoot him dead anyway the first chance she gets?
You mean other than him killing her Captain and her friend?
That would indicate an emotional response, but she showed no emotion in her actions, she finished with her Klingon, turned to T'kuvma, and with a blank expression on her face switched her phaser to kill and fired. It reminded me more of a sociopath than someone who had just lost a close friend.
She's a human trying to be Vulcan, and that's what I'd expect a Vulcan to do.
Looks like Burnham's got herself into quite the pickle. How will she ever get out of this one? Tune in next week to find out! Same Trek time, same Trek channel.
Looks like Burnham's got herself into quite the pickle. How will she ever get out of this one? Tune in next week to find out! Same Trek time, same Trek channel.
EXACTLY!!!!
Whoever wrote the ending was obviously expecting fans to go absolutely RABID discussing it.
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
Axanar ripped off Star Trek, it can't go the other way around because the people involved with Axanar never had any legal right to do so. I thought the first two episodes of TRIBBLE were utter garbage, but it is perfectly fine for them to cover things Axanar may have been intended to cover.
Actually Alec Peters ripped off FASA. I own the RPG from the 1980s and have the "Four Years War" module.
However, my point was that from a PR standing, if TRIBBLE also uses the FASA product as the basis for TRIBBLE, they're going to look like A-holes for suing the Axanar project when they didn't sue over Star Trek Phase II, or Star Trek Renegades, or a whole slew of other Fan-made Star Trek "shows" on youtube and elsewhere. They singled out Peters and that is why CBS/Paramount looks bad if they take the same idea and use it while they left all the other fan-made projects alone.
I understand they have the legal right to do it, but that doesn't change the ethics of it.
You must not have been paying attention to everything that went down with Axanar. Peters was profiting monetarily off of the Axanar project, something the fan made shows you compared it to didn't do, and was using the crowd funding he received to build a studio that he planned to turn into a business once the fan project was completed. He was making money by using someone else's IP without written permission of any kind, he had the hammer dropped on him and he deserved it, and he crippled the fan film scene in the process by forcing CBS and Paramount to issue guidelines.
Axxanar was merely a poster child...if it was not axxanar, it would have been ST Continues, or Renegades, or Phase 2. Axxnar was just first in like.
Can't help is CBS/Paramount execs are BEAN COUNTERS, who THINK they got talent.
Get your conspiracy theorist head out of your @ss before you trip over something. Alec Peters' own financial report, which is easily available from Axamonitor (I can't link it directly, the Arc admins seem to have blacklisted links to the site), admitted to paying Peters and some of his personnel a five-digit salary out of the donated funds. CBS filed its lawsuit literally three days after that report came out.
In contrast, when Continues was taken down by YouTube because of a third-party copyright complaint, CBS/Paramount told YouTube to put it back up. What do you think any person with an iota of common sense is going to conclude from this? That CBS is some evul empire that hates fan productions? Or that Alec Peters is a d*ckhead who got caught with his hand in the till?
Coincidentally, tonight's episode of The Orville, which I believe you've said you prefer to Discovery, made a rather salient point about accepting reality over what you wish to be true...
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Spock committed mutiny too. Why does he get a pass? The entire TOS crew commit mutiny, sabotage, any number of various bad things. Why is it ok for them?
I made a list once of the crimes committed by Kirk and company in STIII. The one who got off lightest was Chekov, who merely conspired to commit mutiny, theft of Federation property, and violation of restricted space. (At least, I'm assuming Uhura's charge of assaulting a fellow officer would be considered worse than conspiracy.) Every last one of them should have spent the rest of their lives in the New Zealand penal colony, at best. But we forgive them because they saved Spock - in a manner of speaking - and that their blatant violation of even more Starfleet regulations let them save Earth.
Burnham? She committed mutiny in an effort to save her crew the best way she knew how (and for all we know, she might have been right - Georgiou shut her down before her method could be tried). But we haven't been following her adventures for years already, so space her for her crimes!
and for all we know, she might have been right - Georgiou shut her down before her method could be tried
True, and T'Kuvma did say, "We have been waiting for someone worthy of our attention." Even if it was part of a fake, it could be indication of the Klingon behavioral norm. Also, anything "We come in peace" seemed to have set T'Kuvma off.
Spock committed mutiny too. Why does he get a pass? The entire TOS crew commit mutiny, sabotage, any number of various bad things. Why is it ok for them?
I made a list once of the crimes committed by Kirk and company in STIII. The one who got off lightest was Chekov, who merely conspired to commit mutiny, theft of Federation property, and violation of restricted space. (At least, I'm assuming Uhura's charge of assaulting a fellow officer would be considered worse than conspiracy.) Every last one of them should have spent the rest of their lives in the New Zealand penal colony, at best. But we forgive them because they saved Spock - in a manner of speaking - and that their blatant violation of even more Starfleet regulations let them save Earth.
Burnham? She committed mutiny in an effort to save her crew the best way she knew how (and for all we know, she might have been right - Georgiou shut her down before her method could be tried). But we haven't been following her adventures for years already, so space her for her crimes!
you notably fail on a couple counts here, Jon...
1. yes, they did all that. And they went into HIDING...because there were consequences for DOING all that.
2. But, they came back and saved their entire civilization. it's remarkably easy to get a pardon when you stop something all the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't, and it'd be hard to find an admiral to sit on the court who didn't owe them his life, career, etc. for their subsequent actions. (aka Star Trek IV).
minus the events of STIV (the voyage home) Kirk&Co. would be relegated to a life and existence as fugitives until turning themselves in and facing...
life terms and/or execution depending on who's writing that day.
It might explain why they didn't go into prison within their Universe.
But as viewers, our forgiveness for their action happens because we know they saved Spock.
But Burnham doesn't get that benefit by some. I think that is a double standard.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Comments
My character Tsin'xing
Worked for Star Wars.
Fun fact: that TOS ep of DS9 did not have the ability to make proper duplicates of the TOS sets, because certain parts of the TOS sets were made of custom plastics and the only manufacturer anywhere in the world who could make the materials needed no longer makes them.
But, more to the point, obsessively recreating things leads to what is known as a "creative straightjacket", IE you have a duplicate, and now to do anything with it you have to "break" it.
My character Tsin'xing
If it wasn't made with a fanbase in mind, why did they bother calling it Star Trek? Why not just do a completely new show called Discovery? Sorry, but the fact that they were using the Trek Franchise and IP, was because they wanted the existing fanbase. New show = New Fanbase -/+ possible high signups for their streaming service... That's what this has always been about all along: Getting subscribers for All Access
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Because some fans can suspend mismatches in continuity, for the sake of good storytelling.
Let's not paint the entire fanbase in such a broad brush. Some fans like Discovery already. Others are leery, but are willing to give it a shot for now. Others still are not happy with it.
All are still fans.
But that, too, is something TRIBBLE lacks.
I also wouldn't expect the show to make their ship look like some 1960s thing. Technology has progressed since then and we need to keep it looking futuristic not for the purists but for future generations to become interested in watching it. It also has only been the pilot so far. We truly haven't seen where this is going yet but looks promising from previews.
I would pay and watch the series just to show you want more trek even if this trek isn't exactly what you want to see. If this flops, the likelihood you get something else is probably slim to none.
Lifetime Sub since June 2010
A good story has a protagonist that is either likeable or relatable, Burnham is neither, in fact I'd say she's more of a villain than T'kuvma, and her motivation isn't entirely clear either. Did say she mutiny due to a bizarre use of logic? Was she just looking for suicidal payback? Who knows. And why would she make such a big deal about needing to take T'kuvma alive, and then
I just didn't think it was terribly clear, at least not in a way that made sense. And trying to save her Captain by attempting to take an action that would ensure the death of everyone onboard the Shenzhou is just incredibly bizarre thinking.
That would indicate an emotional response, but she showed no emotion in her actions, she finished with her Klingon, turned to T'kuvma, and with a blank expression on her face switched her phaser to kill and fired. It reminded me more of a sociopath than someone who had just lost a close friend.
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
To expect a much larger Klingon vessel not to return fire is crazy imo, they are a warrior race that puts a lot of value in the honor of dieing in battle.
And he certainly doesn't crack at any point.
Burnham failed. Her suggestions weren'T followed, she attempts a mutiny and is arrested, and then when she later finally gets a chance at getting at least some plan gone, she doesn'T follow through and rather kills T'Kuvma for killing her Captain.
She failed. And consequently ,she isn't the youngest Captain of a Starship afterwards, she's in prison, and by the way, a war between Federation and Klingons is raging. Maybe it couldn't be stopped, maybe it could have been stopped, we don't know, but we can be fairly certain she feels responsible.
And that is a position from which the series will go on. She will have to redeem herself, in the eyes of her peers, but also in her own view. We'll see how well they'll do this in the show in the coming episodes, but I think this has a potential for a quite powerful story arc then already starting from an Utopian Ideal like, say, Picard.
My character Tsin'xing
Whoever wrote the ending was obviously expecting fans to go absolutely RABID discussing it.
My character Tsin'xing
in troubling times such as these, we must look to the right question for the appropriate answer, and that question is...WWSD (What Would Sarek Do)?
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Get your conspiracy theorist head out of your @ss before you trip over something. Alec Peters' own financial report, which is easily available from Axamonitor (I can't link it directly, the Arc admins seem to have blacklisted links to the site), admitted to paying Peters and some of his personnel a five-digit salary out of the donated funds. CBS filed its lawsuit literally three days after that report came out.
In contrast, when Continues was taken down by YouTube because of a third-party copyright complaint, CBS/Paramount told YouTube to put it back up. What do you think any person with an iota of common sense is going to conclude from this? That CBS is some evul empire that hates fan productions? Or that Alec Peters is a d*ckhead who got caught with his hand in the till?
Coincidentally, tonight's episode of The Orville, which I believe you've said you prefer to Discovery, made a rather salient point about accepting reality over what you wish to be true...
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
Burnham? She committed mutiny in an effort to save her crew the best way she knew how (and for all we know, she might have been right - Georgiou shut her down before her method could be tried). But we haven't been following her adventures for years already, so space her for her crimes!
True, and T'Kuvma did say, "We have been waiting for someone worthy of our attention." Even if it was part of a fake, it could be indication of the Klingon behavioral norm. Also, anything "We come in peace" seemed to have set T'Kuvma off.
But as viewers, our forgiveness for their action happens because we know they saved Spock.
But Burnham doesn't get that benefit by some. I think that is a double standard.