Thread: Movies and TV CBS: Star Trek
View Single Post
Old 09-25-2017, 01:07 AM   #287
Discuss Thrower Discuss Thrower is offline
"You like to drink?"
 
Discuss Thrower's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: "I like to drink."
Casino cash: $3046869
What's good?

The SFX, camera work, set design and other aesthetics were awesome even considering Abramsesque overuse of lens flares. Martin-Green, Yeoh, Jones and Frain were good in their respective roles. Setting Burnham's backstory as being a Vulcan-trained human accomplishes a few things in allowing for Burnham to be Mr(s). Exposition to explain the science-y points of the story for audience convenience when necessary, gives her credibility as an expert when they need to McGuyver the story out of jams without pushing the limits of the suspension of disbelief, and the background to meld the martial aspect of a Klingon War centric show with the noble aims of a Starfleet by coming to the conclusion that they have to act violently in order to win peace. Further, the show centering the main plot by following an XO rather than a captain is a nice little departure from the last four modern-era Trek series and allows for some natural drama as we see with Burnham's putsch and will probably see later.

What's not so good?

The whiplash-inducing pace of the first 20 minutes or so where Burnham and Georgiou seem to teleport around the desert planet for the clearest example though that seemed to stop once the T'Kuvma started his plan to become the Ghenghis Khan of Qo'nos, the CBS Access app and charging for it (though I guess it's nice if you want to watch both the new and old versions of the Odd Couple and other CBS-owned franchises), the rejiggling of the Klingon culture, the dialogue being a little repetitive and stilted though I appreciate the repetitiveness in some aspects like the EVA checklists and other spaceship related operations minutae because I feel like they are at least making it a soft Sci-Fi story rather than Space Fantasy or Opera where science-based details and plots are hand waved away and establishes some mundane 'realism'.

What's leaving me saying... huh?

What timeline is the show following and what differences are there in the canon from the Roddenberry / Berman & Braga or Abrams' universes, the Daft Punk bridge officer robot (?) on the Shenzhou, comms officers wearing cybernetics (?), space ships with negative space design features (but why?), the ginormous bridge on the Shenzhou, why an unambiguously female (..or not?) character has an unambiguously male name, including some TOS area sound effects with Abrams-trek era visuals... Maybe more will come to mind if I rewatch it.

Above all it's definitely a change from Berman and Braga-era trek but not quite what I expected from the Trek we saw in the last three big screen releases, though I must admit not seeing the last Abrams' Trek movie.
__________________
Chiefs 2016 Opponents:
Home: JAX, TEN, NO, TB, NYJ. Away: HOU, IND, ATL, CAR, PIT
Chiefs 2017 Opponents:
Home: BUF, MIA, PHI, WSH, AFC North. Away: NE, NYJ, NYG, DAL, AFC South
Posts: 42,865
Discuss Thrower is obviously part of the inner Circle.Discuss Thrower is obviously part of the inner Circle.Discuss Thrower is obviously part of the inner Circle.Discuss Thrower is obviously part of the inner Circle.Discuss Thrower is obviously part of the inner Circle.Discuss Thrower is obviously part of the inner Circle.Discuss Thrower is obviously part of the inner Circle.Discuss Thrower is obviously part of the inner Circle.Discuss Thrower is obviously part of the inner Circle.Discuss Thrower is obviously part of the inner Circle.Discuss Thrower is obviously part of the inner Circle.
    Reply With Quote