Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > > >

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-16-2017, 06:34 PM   #126
mikelbyl
old hand
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1,425
Re: Star Trek (2017)

I still have no idea how this show is supposedly set *before* TOS in the timeline and yet every. single. thing. is shinier and way more modern than TOS. Not to mention that they're trying to propose this revolutionary jump drive that everyone just forgot, didn't even warrant a message in passing on Voyager.

Janeway, 10 minutes after passing through to the Delta Quadrant: "Wow, would be cool to have that jump drive right about now."
Crewmember: "Yeah, that would be boss, Captain. Oh well."

The worst part of it? There's no need for it!
mikelbyl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2017, 06:39 PM   #127
SenorKeeed
mew mew mew
 
SenorKeeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 37,628
Re: Star Trek (2017)

I mean my ipad is like 1000 times better than those retarded pads in TNG. This is set far in the future, they have to make the tech look futuristic compared to what we have right now. The devices in TOS look laughable now, so they have to make it look better. They did the same thing in the new movies and in Enterprise.
SenorKeeed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2017, 09:00 PM   #128
ntanygd760
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
ntanygd760's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 8,918
Re: Star Trek (2017)

I have no issue with things looking shiny and newer than shows in the trek future timelines. I understand why you don't like the spore drive since it is never talked about in the future. I get how it doesn't seem to fit but (no real spoilers but written after episode 5.
Spoiler:


I totally understand why Trek fans would hate this and just hate a serial Star Trek instead of the episodic formula and tone of the other shows. TV has moved way past that formula for a show to use in this day and age.

Last edited by ntanygd760; 10-16-2017 at 09:05 PM.
ntanygd760 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2017, 03:37 AM   #129
Mark_K
Kerbal \'Tunnel
 
Mark_K's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Solving puzzles
Posts: 23,938
Re: Star Trek (2017)

Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorKeeed View Post
f-bombs on Star Trek? Truly where no man has gone before
Supposedly there were two f-bombs in this episode. I remember the one in the lab said by the roommate. Where was the other?
Mark_K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2017, 05:36 AM   #130
_dave_
_Pooh_Bah_
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK (or what remains of it)
Posts: 12,997
Re: Star Trek (2017)

about 4 seconds later, same scene, lead scientist.
_dave_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2017, 01:05 AM   #131
ntanygd760
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
ntanygd760's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 8,918
Re: Star Trek (2017)

This episode is probably going to be another haters gonna hate episode. I liked the dark places they implied certain characters are going to.
ntanygd760 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2017, 07:59 AM   #132
DoctorZangief
The Brick
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,531
Re: Star Trek (2017)

Yeah I thought it was the worst episode yet. Deus ex magicka. With all of the hocus pocus it may as well have been a Halloween episode.

Also Admiral storyline was obv once she started calling out the Cap.
DoctorZangief is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2017, 01:35 PM   #133
BrookTrout
old hand
 
BrookTrout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,441
Re: Star Trek (2017)

Was thinking he'd sabotage her shuttle craft - that would've been a dark place to go.

Wonder if we'll ever get an episode that's a stand-alone.
BrookTrout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2017, 09:58 PM   #134
ntanygd760
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
ntanygd760's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 8,918
Re: Star Trek (2017)

Th previews looked like the next episode might be stand alone.
ntanygd760 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2017, 12:53 AM   #135
ntanygd760
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
ntanygd760's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 8,918
Re: Star Trek (2017)

meh on that one off
ntanygd760 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2017, 01:07 AM   #136
heltok
old hand
 
heltok's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,412
Re: Star Trek (2017)

Really didn't care for this episode...
heltok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2017, 10:53 PM   #137
gregorio
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 35,682
Re: Star Trek (2017)

would have been better if they hadn't done it already on TNG
gregorio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2017, 04:58 AM   #138
filthyvermin
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
filthyvermin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Moving the Overton Window
Posts: 42,114
Re: Star Trek (2017)

i'm loving this show. i realize it's not the best show ever, or maybe not even that good. but i love star trek! and i think this fit's in nicely. it's different from all the other trek shows in a lot of ways, but that's ok with me. it's got some interesting characters going on. i like how michael burnam is a mutineer and a "failure" for not being accepted into the vulcan science whatever. and i like how the captain is unfit for duty but still commanding anyway.

i do not like the stupid security officer and the stupid romance they have between him and burnam. he is terrible.

i like the nerdy redhead, and the gangly alien.

it seems broken if the ship can teleport anywhere anytime, especially if it blows up other ships around it when it teleports
filthyvermin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2017, 08:42 AM   #139
SenorKeeed
mew mew mew
 
SenorKeeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 37,628
Re: Star Trek (2017)

I'm watching it every week and I don't hate it and I love star trek...but this doesn't seem like star trek to me
SenorKeeed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2017, 09:27 AM   #140
Punker
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Punker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: McJesus saves
Posts: 7,366
Re: Star Trek (2017)

Have watched all the eps so far.

Burnham is terribly cast. The character acts nothing like a supposed Vulcan would, with regular sarcastic or snarky comments that are completely out of character for what I believe Vulcans are meant to be.

Captain is well cast and well done; he's bombastic and sure of himself and defies orders regularly.

Redhead is ok, but I have no idea what her role is on the show. She doesn't advance anything or have any particular character motivation.

As for the latest episode, what is the supposed reason that Stamets cannot get the new security guy to help him? The whole thing seems ridiculously forced, and the "secret" that Burnham tells Stamets is outlandish in terms of being something that she would certainly believe him in future time loop iterations.

As well, I find it a little difficult to believe that..

Spoiler:
Punker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2017, 09:30 AM   #141
SenorKeeed
mew mew mew
 
SenorKeeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 37,628
Re: Star Trek (2017)

yeah seems like summary execution should be on the table there. Treason, aid to the enemy in a time of war, murder, I could go on but come on even in Federationland these have to be bad
SenorKeeed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2017, 10:21 AM   #142
gregorio
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 35,682
Re: Star Trek (2017)

Mudd is in a couple of episodes of TOS so they can't kill him off in this series which is set ten years earlier
gregorio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2017, 10:23 AM   #143
ntanygd760
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
ntanygd760's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 8,918
Re: Star Trek (2017)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gregorio View Post
would have been better if they hadn't done it already on TNG
That is why the entire episode seemed familiar. Been forever since I have watched TNG.
ntanygd760 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2017, 10:26 AM   #144
ntanygd760
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
ntanygd760's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 8,918
Re: Star Trek (2017)

Quote:
Originally Posted by filthyvermin View Post
i'm loving this show. i realize it's not the best show ever, or maybe not even that good. but i love star trek! and i think this fit's in nicely. it's different from all the other trek shows in a lot of ways, but that's ok with me. it's got some interesting characters going on. i like how michael burnam is a mutineer and a "failure" for not being accepted into the vulcan science whatever. and i like how the captain is unfit for duty but still commanding anyway.

i do not like the stupid security officer and the stupid romance they have between him and burnam. he is terrible.

i like the nerdy redhead, and the gangly alien.

it seems broken if the ship can teleport anywhere anytime, especially if it blows up other ships around it when it teleports
I thought they just left behind explosives of some sort a few episodes ago when they jumped and then the klingon ships blew up.
ntanygd760 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2017, 11:05 AM   #145
SenorKeeed
mew mew mew
 
SenorKeeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 37,628
Re: Star Trek (2017)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gregorio View Post
Mudd is in a couple of episodes of TOS so they can't kill him off in this series which is set ten years earlier
Right, so maybe don't write him into an episode where he commits a capital crime and at the end of the episode have the crew all, toodles, best of luck bro
SenorKeeed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2017, 02:09 PM   #146
champstark
aka starkwired
 
champstark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 14,841
Re: Star Trek (2017)

Weird that Star Trek fans would hate that episode. Most Star Trekian of the series, by far.
champstark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2017, 10:04 PM   #147
Punker
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Punker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: McJesus saves
Posts: 7,366
Re: Star Trek (2017)

Quote:
Originally Posted by champstark View Post
Weird that Star Trek fans would hate that episode. Most Star Trekian of the series, by far.
The problem is they took a concept that had been sort of done before, and did it worse.
Punker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2017, 10:08 PM   #148
SenorKeeed
mew mew mew
 
SenorKeeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 37,628
Re: Star Trek (2017)

Quote:
Originally Posted by champstark View Post
Weird that Star Trek fans would hate that episode. Most Star Trekian of the series, by far.
Yeah, I guess it was. But just wasn't feeling it.
SenorKeeed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2017, 11:04 AM   #149
filthyvermin
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
filthyvermin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Moving the Overton Window
Posts: 42,114
Re: Star Trek (2017)

i got tilted when they mentioned elon **** musk as one of the greatest names in history
filthyvermin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2017, 02:07 PM   #150
_dave_
_Pooh_Bah_
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK (or what remains of it)
Posts: 12,997
Re: Star Trek (2017)

Good episode, looking forward to next week.

Quite enjoyed last week's also. Interesting to see people crediting it as "a TNG thing", which it is of course, but it's a staple trope and most any sci-fi (or often otherwise) series has a "Groundhog Day" episode at some point. Was TNG's Cause and Effect the first? Dark Matter's one earlier this year was a pretty good one. Person of Interest's is probably my favourite.
_dave_ is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2017, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online