Jump to content


Photo

Star Trek: Discovery

star trek discovery tv show

  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 Igor Trajkovski

Igor Trajkovski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 311 posts
  • Other
  • Macedonia

Posted 26 September 2017 - 11:07 AM

I watched the first episode, now the second.

Looks good.  Feels very modern, makes the previous ST's  "outdated" :)
(except J.J's Trek and after).

It is entertaining for me, won't comment/hair-split on story, character, acting...
Maybe it needs some time to fine tune, find its footing.

Hell, even when i rewatched TNG form start i felt Picard was "wobbly".


Your thoughts?

PS:  Before posting this i finished the second - it IS VERY promising.
       At the end of it is a trailer segment on what awaits in this season.



 


  • 0

#2 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1175 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 26 September 2017 - 11:54 AM

How's the cinematography on it?


  • 0

#3 Chris Burke

Chris Burke
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1720 posts
  • Boston, MA

Posted 26 September 2017 - 06:16 PM

Is it worth paying for?? With all the streaming already about, is it worth yet another username and password and monthly payment? I haven't seen it, cuz I missed the  broadcast and don't really want to pony up.


  • 0

#4 KH Martin

KH Martin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 254 posts
  • Other
  • Portland, Oregon

Posted 26 September 2017 - 06:53 PM

I saw the last 2/3rds of the first episode and even though my expectations were very low, I was disappointed anyway. A lot of ridiculous lens flares and more dutch angles than you'd see in an old BATMAN episode or BATTLEFIELD EARTH. Dialog was horrible, klingons all spoke their lines like dentures were falling out. More glitz on their costumes and ship interiors than you'd find in a Trump building.

 

I'm pretty disappointed with ORVILLE seeming to be written at a highschool level, but at least it has heart (by end of ep 3 anyway) and is free ... not buying into DSC, and that's based on the content, not even getting into the streaming issues (especially given that the platform apparently only manages to get to 720 and not even that on all systems.)


  • 0

#5 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 20074 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 26 September 2017 - 09:26 PM

I liked it.  The cinematography is contemporary, in the style of J.J. Abrams' Trek, which is fine, it's just style.  Looks very big-budget for TV.  I've always liked lens flares myself, ever since I saw "Close Encounters".

 

I just worry that it's all going to be like the J.J. Abrams' Trek in terms of story -- all heavy melodrama and action, few big sci-fi ideas.  But it's hard to judge after two episodes (TNG didn't really get going until the 2nd season with "Measure of a Man").  The cast is great, the effects are great.  

 

I can quibble a little over the size of that bridge set, and the gold plastic stripes all over the uniforms...  And it's true that the Klingon speeches were too long and sloooowwwww.

 

I signed up for the $6/month CBS All-Access w/ commercials, but it is pretty annoying that I'm paying to see commercials that I can't even fast forward through as I do with what I DVR.

 

I've also enjoyed "The Orville", the third episode was classic Trek but with some jokes thrown in.  It's a bit too clean and bright, I know that is intentional -- Seth Meyers wants it to be "optimistic" and not dystopian -- and I suppose it is expected for a comedy, but I would prefer a few more shadows.


  • 0

#6 Chris Burke

Chris Burke
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1720 posts
  • Boston, MA

Posted 30 September 2017 - 08:10 AM

I watched the first two and probably no more. The fee is the deal breaker for me. With all the great content already out there, this show isn't or hasn't yet discovered any new ground. To have to pay and sit through commercials for a mediocre show...

 

Yet again, establishment Hollywood plays it safe with cookie cutter Federation scenarios. Same story just with new production design. I have to temper my critique by saying the cinematography and production design are wonderful. I am with David, what is wrong with flares? The costumes and sets are rich and very detailed. Love the lighting, the colors, the sets. Is that bridge underslung? Beneath the saucer section? If so, kinda cool.

 

The make up is top notch. Huge shout out to all the MUD grads from Burbank and beyond who worked on Discovery. Very well done.

 

I just wish it was more engaging. I am not emotionally invested in the lead or anyone else for that matter. The tiresome Klingons, despite a great look, are all talk and too much of it. We all know that many will die along the way, but the Klingons will loose. 

 

It does look big budget and it probably is, which limits it's chance of survival.


  • 0

#7 KH Martin

KH Martin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 254 posts
  • Other
  • Portland, Oregon

Posted 30 September 2017 - 08:33 AM

For me it is not just the volume of the lens flares (which is way above the gonna-max-out-for-me-about-first-DIE HARD level), but also the context. The last thing you need in a shipboard environment is glare, and since Abrams (except for most of Lin's much improved effort) it has been nothing but.  The Abrams was worse than this because it was a bright white environ too -- if you look at the consoles, you see the people on the bridge are pretty much staring directly into lights around their displays, so obviously there is some kind of eye-dilation tech in place, otherwise everybody'd be dead because they wouldn't have been able to read the display. I think the lens flares in the first trek movie (mostly during VFX space exteriors) were exquisite, and the same for the luminous UFOs in CE3K, but here this is akin to poking you in the eye with a sharp stick ... it may get your attention, but it won't help you get the job done.

 

Doing Klingons with the baroque texturing sounds like a let's-do-GAME-OF-THRONES-regardless-of-context call. It may look better than the leather-that-looked-like-inflatable-rubber that the klingons wore in TREK 6, but I actually think the stuff done in the first movie that was the basis for what was used in the third one, which wasn't much more that plastic tubing on a vest shape, looked very good.

 

I'm a hard audience to please when it comes to Trek (I only really like three of the movies, and nothing at all except a big chunk of DS9 and about half of BEYOND since the 90s), but I'm actually getting slivers of pleasure from the last 2 ORVILLE eps, after the unmitigated awfulness of the first couple. Yeah, it is kind of like watching NextGen (of which I was not a fan), and somewhat dumbed down NextGen at that, and the lighting is godawfully undramatic, but it is trying to do right, and I admire the effort, if not the execution.

 

All of this stuff seems pretty bad compared to FIREFLY, which got nearly everything right from the start, except the science. Could say nearly the same for the GALACTICA reboot, but their visual style was really hard on the eyes -- it seemed like they deliberately tried to make sure everything in any given shot was either over- or underexposed, with NOTHING looking normal, like they wanted the show to look like the PITCH BLACK planet or something. 


  • 0

#8 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2273 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 30 September 2017 - 08:41 AM

Here in the UK I can watch it on Netflix which I did first two so far not sure about it yet .


  • 0

#9 Phil Connolly

Phil Connolly
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 443 posts
  • Director
  • London

Posted 30 September 2017 - 09:24 AM

It looks very nice and the first couple of eps were pretty good. In the UK it just appeared in my Netflix feed so I gave it a go and will probably keep watching. Not sure I'd seek it out otherwise - I wouldn't have taken out an additional subscription to watch it - but very happy its on Netflix


  • 0

#10 David Mawson

David Mawson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 86 posts
  • Other
  • Manchester

Posted 30 September 2017 - 02:34 PM

For me it is not just the volume of the lens flares (which is way above the gonna-max-out-for-me-about-first-DIE HARD level), but also the context. The last thing you need in a shipboard environment is glare, and since Abrams (except for most of Lin's much improved effort) it has been nothing but.  The Abrams was worse than this because it was a bright white environ too -- if you look at the consoles, you see the people on the bridge are pretty much staring directly into lights around their displays, so obviously there is some kind of eye-dilation tech in place, otherwise everybody'd be dead because they wouldn't have been able to read the display. I think the lens flares in the first trek movie (mostly during VFX space exteriors) were exquisite, and the same for the luminous UFOs in CE3K, but here this is akin to poking you in the eye with a sharp stick ... it may get your attention, but it won't help you get the job done.

 

 

The other problem with throwing lens flare around all the time is that you lose the ability to use it as emphasis for a certain type of emotion, which is how Spielberg used it in CE3K: "This is a moment of wonder - LENS FLARE!!!"


Edited by David Mawson, 30 September 2017 - 02:34 PM.

  • 0

#11 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 20074 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 30 September 2017 - 04:17 PM

https://trekmovie.co...t-is-for-kings/

Looking at the clip, it seems that once they've gone into series shooting mode, there is less use of lens flares. Keep in mind that the first two episodes were a pilot.
  • 0

#12 Jon O'Brien

Jon O'Brien
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 382 posts
  • Other
  • Brisbane

Posted 30 September 2017 - 05:24 PM

Yes lens flares and glowing lights in the sky were beautiful in Close Encounters. It was interesting that it was quite close in some ways to Spielberg's teenage film he made, Firelight - the main vfx of which was a simple torch light with cellophane over it, then superimposed on backwound film. Inspired. I also recall some nice lens flares in Alien (the first one) but it's been a while since I watched it. I find Abrams' use of lens flare tasteful and worthwhile.


  • 0

#13 KH Martin

KH Martin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 254 posts
  • Other
  • Portland, Oregon

Posted 30 September 2017 - 06:37 PM

https://trekmovie.co...t-is-for-kings/

Looking at the clip, it seems that once they've gone into series shooting mode, there is less use of lens flares. Keep in mind that the first two episodes were a pilot.

They've got at least three DPs on the show; I think Navarro only shot the pilot, but it wasn't like it was a 'shoot the pilot and wait to get a go-ahead for series,' it was more like first two eps of a 13 ep order (that expanded to 15 this last summer, I think.)


  • 0

#14 Robin Phillips

Robin Phillips
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts
  • Director
  • Los Angeles / San Francisco

Posted 01 October 2017 - 08:21 PM

did anyone else feel like if they wanted a JJ style pilot they should have just hired JJ to do the pilot?


  • 0

#15 KH Martin

KH Martin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 254 posts
  • Other
  • Portland, Oregon

Posted 01 October 2017 - 09:45 PM

did anyone else feel like if they wanted a JJ style pilot they should have just hired JJ to do the pilot?

Based on what I've read, their choice of pilot director (CBS' call) is one of the prime calls that led to Bryan Fuller's ouster, as he and the director -- who had been aboard for several months before shooting began -- didn't see eye to eye on much of anything.

 

Supposedly Fuller wanted Edgar Wright (which makes me think he'd've settled for Joe Cornish ... and that would mean he was looking at two of the folks being considered for the most recentTREK feature film.)


  • 0

#16 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2273 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 02 October 2017 - 07:44 AM

Episode 3 I thought was a lot better than the first two.


  • 0

#17 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4090 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 03 October 2017 - 04:04 AM

I thought the first two episodes were well made. The show doesn't really fit into the Star Trek universe, they clearly didn't make an attempt to follow the previous series, which is unfortunate. I think they're riding the coat tails of Star Trek instead of calling it something else, which is what I'd prefer due to it's discrepency from anything else I've seen in that universe.

Still, well shot, great sets, pretty nifty/creative costumes and I think a cast that will work. I'll watch a few more episodes and hold my over-all judgement until the end of the season, but it's off to a good start and that's saying something coming from the skeptic of all skeptcis. :)
  • 1

#18 Igor Trajkovski

Igor Trajkovski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 311 posts
  • Other
  • Macedonia

Posted 11 October 2017 - 04:51 PM

This might be the "darkest" Trek.
And I don't mean visually.  :)

It's been awhile, but as i recall the other series were more on the

polite, civilized side in depicting personal and intergalactic conflicts.

Here i feel some darker aspects of humanity portrayed,

as if humans/federation hasn't reached that level of sophistication.

"Downton Abbey" vs "Game of Thrones"
The comparison might be too contrasty but you'll get the point. :)

I personally like it, giving more realism, more honesty.
War/conflict is a "dirty" business.

...

Episode 3 was "Trek" meets "Doom 3" (the video game) meets "The Thing" (Carpenter) :)

I can't recall such graphic depiction of mutilated bodies in the other ST shows.


Best

IT.

PS: I like both, "Downton" and "GoT".
 


  • 0

#19 KH Martin

KH Martin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 254 posts
  • Other
  • Portland, Oregon

Posted 11 March 2018 - 12:04 PM

I waited till I could watch the series for free on a one-week trial via Amazon and found the series looked a lot (a LOT!) sharper than the part of the premiere I saw on regular CBS months back. It was like DVD to laserdisc different, at least.

 

Having said that ... I still don't like it, though once they got onto the DSC ship things improved for a little while. There were a few moments in ep3 with Isaacs that hinted at some real potential, but they squandered all that, going off in all sorts of directions and then at the end just going into lunacy. ep 13 or 14 seemed like a bad CONAN knockoff in space, and all the 'darkness' of Capt. Lorca is band-aided over with how they explained things, which doesn't explore the human condition and complexity/contradictions of 'our guys' at all, like the way section 31 would have. Not even going to think about the show continuity-wise with the original, as this size war a decade before Kirk & co just doesn't fit at all for me.

 

On a tech level, I was flabbergasted at how terrible nearly all the spaceship exterior stuff looked; the Emperor's ship just seemed like seaQuest without the blue, it was an utter cartoon. Designwise I don't think I liked a single ship, and I found the way the live-action was shot to be a distraction. While they rarely pause to actually discuss anything at length (instead just bringing an important issue up, just to have somebody else say that there isn't time to debate that, go do your job), the camera never seems to rest or allow you to focus on what is being said.

 

I also think the streaming model of doing all the shows before any air worked against their tailoring the show based on audience response. On original TREK, once NBC realized the fans loved Spock, they stopped asking production to keep the ear guy in the background and started demanding more Spock shows by mid-season, and the writing staff also took advantage of emerging actor alchemy to bring the Spock/McCoy feuding to the fore. If DSC had actually gotten some good feedback on this as the season progressed, they'd've probably featured Tilly a lot more (probably the only character I like in this whole show.)

 

Perhaps they'd've also done better work on the lead character, who, while potentially the most interesting lead since Sisko, was a complete disconnect/misfire for me. I had a 'disgraced officer as lead'premise for an Enterprise-B show that I actually spent some time writing up after GENERATIONS came out, so I'm extremely attracted to the notion of LORD JIM in space (With the E-B, you'd have a Captain who is forever thought of first as TheGuyWhoGotKirkKilled, which is a pretty heavy cross to bear, even in the weightlessness of space.) Also the post-STAR TREK VI era is perfect to work political paranoia angles, as ST III and VI both seem almost X-FILES-ish at times with the hints of conspiracy and maybe even disappearing people (In the third movie, a Federation security guy tells McCoy he shouldn't be discussing a subject in public, which sounded so sinister to me that I kept thinking they should be playing the CAPRICORN ONE evil helicopter music when he says it.)

 

DSC, for me, is a huge missed opportunity overall, and it will take a huge reversal of style and content to ever get me to pay to watch any more of this.


  • 0



Aerial Filmworks

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

Rig Wheels Passport

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Wooden Camera

FJS International, LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

The Slider

Technodolly

Glidecam

Metropolis Post

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

Willys Widgets

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

rebotnix Technologies

FJS International, LLC

Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Paralinx LLC

The Slider

CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

CineLab

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Aerial Filmworks

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

Tai Audio

Glidecam

Technodolly

Wooden Camera