Jump to content


Photo

Star Trek: Discovery


  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

#1 Slim

Slim

    Advanced Member

  • Hat Award Winner
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,638 posts

Posted 30 August 2018 - 02:42 PM

I tried to watch the first episode of Star Trek: Discovery last night. In general I was a bit dismayed to see how far off the feel of the old Star Trek TV series it was, in atmosphere and mood - and the Klingons especially I thought looked and sounded awful.

 

But what I really couldn't get past, and what stopped me watching after about 20 minutes, was Michelle Yeoh's acting. More wooden than a mahogany desk. She just seemed to have no connection at all with the words she was repeating, as if they were in a foreign language to her. I genuinely - literally - would have given a more natural and realistic performance myself.



#2 fenderjazz

fenderjazz

    Insert witty title here

  • Administrators
  • 6,082 posts
  • LocationNYC Area Suburbs

Posted 30 August 2018 - 02:48 PM

I tried to watch the first episode of Star Trek: Discovery last night. In general I was a bit dismayed to see how far off the feel of the old Star Trek TV series it was, in atmosphere and mood - and the Klingons especially I thought looked and sounded awful.

 

But what I really couldn't get past, and what stopped me watching after about 20 minutes, was Michelle Yeoh's acting. More wooden than a mahogany desk. She just seemed to have no connection at all with the words she was repeating, as if they were in a foreign language to her. I genuinely - literally - would have given a more natural and realistic performance myself.

 

I only saw the first episode as well and spot on!  The actors in the prior series sold it, completely.  They believed it.  They made you believe it.  This didn't sound natural at all, Michelle Yeoh, sure but others as well.  The jargon and actors have to match up.  If they are not up to the task, then they need different lines.  I hate to mix Star Wars and Star Trek, but for example, they didn't give Han Solo heavy tech lines.  It wouldn't have sounded right.  They gave that to C3PO, Vader, etc, where it flowed.



#3 baldiepete

baldiepete

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,666 posts
  • LocationEdinburgh, Scotland

Posted 30 August 2018 - 03:41 PM

I made it through two episodes but gave up and have no intention of watching the rest. I just disliked all of the characters and you need to feel something positive towards the main protagonists to get any enjoyment from it.

#4 Three Eyes

Three Eyes

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,156 posts

Posted 30 August 2018 - 04:02 PM

Haven't seen it. Too much to watch as it is. But Patrick Stewart is the gold standard of Star Trek acting. And it helped that The Next Generation had such fantastic writing.

 

Have you seen this?

https://twitter.com/...cess-new-series


Hey there goes Alex. He's loaded with money. Wow he's really set himself up great.


#5 Three Eyes

Three Eyes

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,156 posts

Posted 30 August 2018 - 04:03 PM

I made it through two episodes but gave up and have no intention of watching the rest. I just disliked all of the characters and you need to feel something positive towards the main protagonists to get any enjoyment from it.

 

Bad casting has taken down a lot of shows. Now if you add bad writing, forget about it...


Hey there goes Alex. He's loaded with money. Wow he's really set himself up great.


#6 baldiepete

baldiepete

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,666 posts
  • LocationEdinburgh, Scotland

Posted 30 August 2018 - 04:18 PM

Hmm, we’ll see. I loved TNG at the time and Patrick Stewart was the best actor to appear in any Trek series but I’m not sure you can go back. I tried to watch some old TNG on SyFy recently and found it very difficult. There’s enough wooden acting there (I’m looking at you Marina Sirtis, Jonathon Frakes and pretty much everyone except Captain Slaphead) to fully stock a furniture store (or should that be “to stock fully”?).

#7 Three Eyes

Three Eyes

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,156 posts

Posted 30 August 2018 - 05:06 PM

Hmm, we’ll see. I loved TNG at the time and Patrick Stewart was the best actor to appear in any Trek series but I’m not sure you can go back. I tried to watch some old TNG on SyFy recently and found it very difficult. There’s enough wooden acting there (I’m looking at you Marina Sirtis, Jonathon Frakes and pretty much everyone except Captain Slaphead) to fully stock a furniture store (or should that be “to stock fully”?).

 

Yep that was a problem with TNG. Everyone except Stewart seemed to phone it in. Might be that the producers were looking for a more stiffly military tone than what was the emotional train-wreck of the original series. lol.

 

Or it could be the actors were simply out of Stewart's league.

 

If I recall, the only other guy to bring verve to his role was John de Lancie as Q.


Hey there goes Alex. He's loaded with money. Wow he's really set himself up great.


#8 baldiepete

baldiepete

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,666 posts
  • LocationEdinburgh, Scotland

Posted 30 August 2018 - 05:08 PM

Yep that was a problem with TNG. Everyone except Stewart seemed to phone it in. Might be that the producers were looking for a more stiffly military tone than what was the emotional train-wreck of the original series. lol.


A generous interpretation, I think it’s more likely that they were mostly rotten actors.

#9 SJS

SJS

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,310 posts
  • LocationJust east of Lyra

Posted 30 August 2018 - 05:36 PM

I also just saw the first couple of episodes.  (On US TV, the first couple were free on CBS and then the rest you had to get a subscription to an online channel or something.)  I started watching partway into one episode, and I kept waiting for the moment when the crew would discover that the enemies they were fighting were not Klingons, but some new strange race.

 

And slowly it dawned on me that they were Klingons.

 

This left me confused for awhile, and then I discovered some quotes from the producers of the show about this.  They seemed to be very proud of themselves for turning this cardboard, superficial enemy race into one with a unique and interesting culture.  Which left me confused, because of course the Klingons had been very deeply fleshed out in the movies and the later series, so much so that some of the very best work in those later shows was Worf's interactions in the complicated political and cultural world of the Klingons.  In fact, one could argue that the new show was a step in the wrong direction, as it kind of borrowed some overdone tropes in an attempt to paste on a new story for the Klingons.

 

Which again made no sense.  Star Trek writers have never been shy about introducing new races.  TNG gave us the Borg and the Bajorans and the Cardassians, Deep Space Nine gave us the Vorta, Voyager gave us a host of Delta Quadrant races.  If you think you have a cool idea for a deep alien culture that Star Trek hasn't explored, why not make a new race?  Why paint over the brilliant (and fan-loved) work done by previous Star Trek universe builders?  It just made no sense.  Either embrace the universe or do something different... don't sort of embrace and then fuck with it.

 

In fairness, Star Trek did do this once before.  I adored the original series Romulans - a very interesting characterization of duty and honor.  I can't say I adored the Klingons, as they really were at that time cardboard villians.  But when the movies and TNG came out, the Romulans became the dirty bastards who don't play fair, and the Klingons became the ones with a rigid code of tradition and duty and honor.  However, given the massive improvement of the physical appearance of Klingons between TOS and TNG, that was much more forgivable.  The change in the physical appearance from TNG to Discovery was just goofy.

 

I also react negatively to this notion of "alternate timelines".  The latest batch of Star Trek movies with the young original crew did not sit well with me.  The massive plot holes were bad enough, but just the idea that I'm supposed to still be invested in these characters even though they are alternate timeline versions of these characters just doesn't make sense.  Either tell more stories in the universe I'm familiar with or give me some interesting characters in a brand new universe.  Alternate timelines are just an excuse for really lazy writing.


LYqbjSn.jpg


#10 fenderjazz

fenderjazz

    Insert witty title here

  • Administrators
  • 6,082 posts
  • LocationNYC Area Suburbs

Posted 30 August 2018 - 06:30 PM

I also react negatively to this notion of "alternate timelines".  The latest batch of Star Trek movies with the young original crew did not sit well with me.  The massive plot holes were bad enough, but just the idea that I'm supposed to still be invested in these characters even though they are alternate timeline versions of these characters just doesn't make sense.  Either tell more stories in the universe I'm familiar with or give me some interesting characters in a brand new universe.  Alternate timelines are just an excuse for really lazy writing.

 

Amen.  Either use the characters and history or start something new.  I know this kind of thing is done in comic books all the time but that's a different audience.  It's like taking soap opera norms and applying it to a two hour movie.  Doesn't work.  In comic books you've got a body of work that is multiple issues per week that stretches on for decades.  You can binge watch Star Trek TOS in a weekend!  TNG in a month and Voyager and DS9 the next month.



#11 chemistry1973

chemistry1973

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,797 posts

Posted 30 August 2018 - 07:25 PM

I actually think the new ST films have hit their stride. The last one was much better than I expected it to be. Kind of like Insurrection but made by people who gave a shit.

Into Darkness was mostly good.

I’ve heard nothing but great things about the new series so I’m slightly surprised to read the negative feedback here. It seems that ironically, sticking to a formula - and utilizing traditional methods of forwarding a plot and getting good performances should be the way to go.

The ‘curveballs’ are incessant - and everyone expects them. Better to make a sturdy series, and then grow from there. TNG did that to great success.

#12 AsIfToFly

AsIfToFly

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 635 posts

Posted 30 August 2018 - 08:33 PM

I watched the entire first season.  It had its moments but I agree with many of the above comments.  I just didn't end up caring about any of the characters.  I don't know if that's the writing, the acting, or both.  I feel that way about the rebooted films as well.  No one is even remotely likable, so I am not compelled to root for them.  I really dislike what they did with Spock too.

 

But back to Discovery, another thing I don't get is why they decided that it would take place in time prior to TOS.  First, all the technology looks way too advanced, even way more than the jump from TOS to TNG.  If they set it later in time, then really the sky's the limit on what they can get away with.  As it is, nothing about the show, even the uniform, looks like it could pre-date TOS.  Obviously, it's going to look better than TOS simply because it's not being produced in the '60s, but even Enterprise made an effort to make it plausible that it was set in an earlier time by giving it a less polished feel.  

 

The season did end on a surprising, and very un-ST, twist, though.  So there were some good ideas in there, but it just doesn't really click for me, especially as a ST show.



#13 SJS

SJS

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,310 posts
  • LocationJust east of Lyra

Posted 30 August 2018 - 09:57 PM

What was the twist?

LYqbjSn.jpg


#14 AsIfToFly

AsIfToFly

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 635 posts

Posted 30 August 2018 - 10:59 PM

What was the twist?

 

Spoiler



#15 SJS

SJS

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,310 posts
  • LocationJust east of Lyra

Posted 31 August 2018 - 01:42 PM

Spoiler

 

Thank you. 


LYqbjSn.jpg


#16 Slim

Slim

    Advanced Member

  • Hat Award Winner
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,638 posts

Posted 31 August 2018 - 08:38 PM

I thought the TNG (and Voyager, and Enterprise)* actors were fine. Nothing to make Meryl Streep or Gary Oldman sit up and pay attention, but for sci-fi TV, fine. Maybe it's me but, at least from the first Discovery, I found Michelle Yeoh's acting to be in a whole new category of terrible. I thought she was OK in Tomorrow Never Dies, don't think I ever saw anything else she did.

 

 

 

* for some reason I never watched DS9.



#17 Three Eyes

Three Eyes

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,156 posts

Posted 31 August 2018 - 08:49 PM

I thought she was good in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. 


Hey there goes Alex. He's loaded with money. Wow he's really set himself up great.


#18 chemistry1973

chemistry1973

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,797 posts

Posted 31 August 2018 - 09:07 PM

She's a badass:

 



#19 chemistry1973

chemistry1973

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,797 posts

Posted 31 August 2018 - 09:10 PM



#20 Three Eyes

Three Eyes

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,156 posts

Posted 31 August 2018 - 09:43 PM

spot-the-difference-one-of-these-is-from


Hey there goes Alex. He's loaded with money. Wow he's really set himself up great.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users