Online Series: Star Trek: Discovery - Topic II

[johnjm22]

DISCOVERY ENGINEERING SET:

Thought this was an interesting tidbit:

"The Discovery, like its captain, has lots of mysteries, lots of secrets when you first come aboard," says Harberts. That includes whatever is going on down in engineering, where the research into fungi being conducted by Anthony Rapp's Lt. Stamets is somehow linked to a bigger mission for the Discovery that apparently has to do with a new method of space travel. As seen in this photo, there is a strange chamber in the middle of Engineering that would seem capable of housing a human being (there's a gurney-like chair in there with various devices). Hmmm...

From: STAR TREK: DISCOVERY - 13 THINGS WE LEARNED ON THE SET


So we get to have some cool science "stuff" hopefully on this show.

Click to read more...

 

[SJSharksfan39]

DISCOVERY ENGINEERING SET:

Thought this was an interesting tidbit:


From: STAR TREK: DISCOVERY - 13 THINGS WE LEARNED ON THE SET


So we get to have some cool science "stuff" hopefully on this show.

That's cool. Everyone has been so worried about social commentary and the political spectrum but Star Trek has always been more than that stuff. I mean this is a franchise that gave us a giant space amoeba for heaven sake.

 

[johnjm22]

That's cool. Everyone has been so worried about social commentary and the political spectrum but Star Trek has always been more than that stuff. I mean this is a franchise that gave us a giant space amoeba for heaven sake.

Yeah. The character Lt. Stamets who's an astromycologist on the show, is inspired by real life scientist Paul Stamets who's done a lot of great work studying Mushrooms. Apparently Mushrooms share DNA with humans and can be used in ways that have "real and profound" impacts on humanity.

Astromycology = the study of space fungus and space mushrooms

 

[johnjm22]

Star Trek Discovery main theme music. It's good.

I like how they worked in cues from previous iconic Star Trek music but still made this its own thing. So it's recognizable, but new.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

I'll watch the pilot (because why wouldn't I?), but the fact is that I have so little interest in paying for another streaming service (especially when the CBS library is something that I'm not interested in to begin with, so it'd really only be for this) that it is going to have to absolutely blow me away for me to be interested in following it if it's not on TV or not on a streaming service that I'm already subscribed to.

In other words, kind of a difficult pathway to success.

Also, just realized that the old topic was past 1k posts, so went ahead and moved the last several posts to this new topic.

Old topic can be found here:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1976563

 

[wej20]

I'll watch the pilot (because why wouldn't I?), but the fact is that I have so little interest in paying for another streaming service (especially when the CBS library is something that I'm not interested in to begin with, so it'd really only be for this) that it is going to have to absolutely blow me away for me to be interested in following it if it's not on TV or not on a streaming service that I'm already subscribed to.

In other words, kind of a difficult pathway to success.

Also, just realized that the old topic was past 1k posts, so went ahead and moved the last several posts to this new topic.

Old topic can be found here:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1976563

Over in the UK it is going to be on Netflix. If they wanted it to be a hit then partnering with an existing streaming service seems like a smarter way to go.

 

[Osprey]

Over in the UK it is going to be on Netflix. If they wanted it to be a hit then partnering with an existing streaming service seems like a smarter way to go.

They're more interested in their new streaming service being a hit. I suspect that the series is less a result of love for the franchise and more the result of business decisions. They're banking on Star Trek fans being rabid enough that they can get a service off of the ground on the backs of their subscriptions. My prediction is that the service will flop and CBS will turn to Netflix to bail them out, signing a new deal to have this first season and all further seasons on Netflix in NA.

 

[johnjm22]

I suspect that the series is less a result of love for the franchise and more the result of business decisions.

It's always been about business decisions. Always.

 

[Blender]

At least in Canada it's going to be on Space, so CBS streaming service required. Means my threshold for cutting out on this will be much higher.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

I think that the obvious counter example is The Orville. One episode in, and it was decent. Not great, not bad, but decent. But it's on TV, so I'll stick around with it in the hope that it gets good or better.

Meanwhile, if the pilot for this is only decent, or even just okay, it won't be enough for me to follow it on a new paid platform. Just an unfortunate fact from my perspective. There's a very real chance that I'll like Discovery more than Orville after one episode but follow only the latter rather than the former or both for ease of entry reasons.

 

[Osprey]

It's always been about business decisions. Always.

You quoted me out of context. In the very next sentence, I explained the type of business decision that I was referring to. New shows are not always conceived simply to launch new services.

 

[Tawnos]

Theme is somewhat boring. I'm so tired of choir drones. Totally unnecessary.

Maybe it'll be more impactful in context.

Hey guys! Something I'm "meh" about now too!!

 

[Tawnos]

You quoted me out of context. In the very next sentence, I explained the type of business decision that I was referring to. New shows are not always conceived simply to launch new services.

Well, except Voyager.

 

[johnjm22]

You quoted me out of context. In the very next sentence, I explained the type of business decision that I was referring to. New shows are not always conceived simply to launch new services.

I don't see what difference it makes, it's as you said a business decision. Whether it's to make money or to launcher a service. It's about money and always has been.

I don't have a problem paying for it. I don't pay for cable so it makes perfect sense for me.

This is the business model that's coming. Looking at it from CBS's perspective, I probably would have done the same thing.

 

[SJSharksfan39]

I've listened to the theme twice and forgot about it after both times. I won't judge though until we get the uninterrupted version with the visuals.

 

[Osprey]

I don't see what difference it makes, it's as you said a business decision. Whether it's to make money or to launcher a service. It's about money and always has been.

I don't have a problem paying for it. I don't pay for cable so it makes perfect sense for me.

This is the business model that's coming. Looking at it from CBS's perspective, I probably would have done the same thing.

It makes a difference to me whether it's born from a good idea, a love for Star Trek and a passion to do the franchise justice or whether executives were fingering down the list of potential intellectual properties to launch their service with and decided on Star Trek because it had the biggest fanbase and lowest risk. Obviously, that's the smart thing from a business standpoint, but that's not how I think that Star Trek is best served. I want Star Trek stories to be told because someone was inspired to come up with them and had some creative freedom. When the decision to exploit an intellectual property comes first and deadlines are set before there's a creative team, a premise, characters, a story or scripts, you end up with things that are uninspired and not as good as they could've been, like the recent Star Wars films.

 

[johnjm22]

It makes a difference to me whether it's born from a good idea, a love for Star Trek and a passion to do the franchise justice or whether executives were fingering down the list of potential intellectual properties to launch their service with and decided on Star Trek because it had the biggest fanbase and lowest risk. Obviously, that's the smart thing from a business standpoint, but that's not how I think that Star Trek is best served. I want Star Trek stories to be told because someone was inspired to come up with them and had some creative freedom. When the decision to exploit an intellectual property comes first and deadlines are set before there's a creative team, a premise, characters, a story or scripts, you end up with things that are uninspired and not as good as they could've been, like the recent Star Wars films.

The people funding Star Trek (CBS/Paramount) have never had a love or passion for it. It's simply an investment that they're trying to get a return on. Always has been, always will be.

I know you don't like CBS's business decision to put the show on their streaming service, but that's not the fault of the creative team (writers/producers/directors). The guys writing and producing may definitely have a passion for Trek. Who's to say they're not inspired? We don't know.

And actually, I quite like the premise of the show. I think it's a very good setup for allegorical story telling with lots of drama an intrigue. I have my concerns and issues with what we've seen/heard, but we'll see how it turns out.

 

[Osprey]

The people funding Star Trek (CBS/Paramount) have never had a love or passion for it. It's simply an investment that they're trying to get a return on. Always has been, always will be.

I didn't suggest that the studios needed to have a passion for it.

I know you don't like CBS's business decision to put the show on their streaming service, but that's not the fault of the creative team (writers/producers/directors). The guys writing and producing may definitely have a passion for Trek. Who's to say they're not inspired? We don't know.

We do know that they're under deadlines and have to produce a particular kind of series or be let go (like Fuller). That's not the best environment for inspiration and creativity to flourish even if you have it. You and I have a passion for Star Trek, but if we were hired and had only a year to come up with a premise, a story, characters, a cast and scripts, all while meeting deadlines and having to stay within the box that the studios want, we'd probably come up with something relatively uninspired. Look at JJ Abrams. He has a passion for Star Wars, yet that doesn't necessarily spell out a great film, especially when under tight deadlines and less creative freedom. I saw that you slammed him for The Force Awakens being "shallow." Just having passion for the universe isn't enough.

 

[Jumptheshark]

This show has me concerned on so many levels. The show hired a director I know for episode 4. Only to pay him out his fee because they went in a different direction. He told me there were too many cooks in the kitchen

 

[Classic Devil]

This show has me concerned on so many levels. The show hired a director I know for episode 4. Only to pay him out his fee because they went in a different direction. He told me there were too many cooks in the kitchen

This is a historic problem for Star Trek. It's one DS9 avoided because the higher-ups paid more attention to Voyager, and that explains a lot of why DS9 was so good while Voyager was so lackluster.

Hopefully if the show survives they'll hone the edge and like all Star Treks (except TOS) it'll improve after Season 1 (or 2).

 

[johnjm22]

I didn't suggest that the studios needed to have a passion for it.

I thought we were speaking in the context of the studio/business aspect of it.

We do know that they're under deadlines and have to produce a particular kind of series or be let go (like Fuller). That's not the best environment for inspiration and creativity to flourish even if you have it. You and I have a passion for Star Trek, but if we were hired and had only a year to come up with a premise, a story, characters, a cast and scripts, all while meeting deadlines and having to stay within the box that the studios want, we'd probably come up with something relatively uninspired. Look at JJ Abrams. He has a passion for Star Wars, yet that doesn't necessarily spell out a great film, especially when under tight deadlines and less creative freedom. I saw that you slammed him for The Force Awakens being "shallow." Just having passion for the universe isn't enough.

Every show/movie that's being released for commercial consumption has deadlines. That's how it works. Believe it or not, sometime deadlines spark creativity. The question is whether those deadlines are sufficient. Fuller was already the the shower runner and executive producer on American Gods, so CBS wanting someone else to take over isn't ridiculous.

All we can ask from the studio is that they put talented people in a position to create something great and give them the things needed to do so without meddling too much. It's not clear that CBS isn't doing this. We have to wait and see. We know they're sparing no expense. If it was just a cash grab they'd so something cheap.

I agree passion doesn't necessarily mean that something is going to be good. I believe the guy that wrote Nemesis loved Star Trek.

 

[johnjm22]

CBS Won't Allow Any Reviews of Star Trek: Discovery Before It Airs

http://io9.gizmodo.com/cbs-wont-allow-any-reviews-of-star-trek-discovery-befo-1809073782

That's usually not a good sign.

 

[RobBrown4PM]

http://io9.gizmodo.com/cbs-wont-allow-any-reviews-of-star-trek-discovery-befo-1809073782

That's usually not a good sign.

Hahaha, this thing has DOA written all over it

 

[Blender]

http://io9.gizmodo.com/cbs-wont-allow-any-reviews-of-star-trek-discovery-befo-1809073782

That's usually not a good sign.

Oh great. Am I the only one who gets discouraged by most of these releases? Last time I checked promotions and press releases were supposed to build hype for your show.

 

[chicagoskycam]

Last movie or show that did this was Independence Day 2. Hmmmmm we know how that went.