:) Hey Buzzkill! I am with you. Especially since they are trying to kick start a CBS-centric Steaming Services with the show.

Phantom

"When you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains,
however improbable, must be the
truth." - Sherlock Holmes

While there were a variety of flaws to Enterprise, I think it probably would have been successful enough if they'd just left out the "temporal cold war" that permeates so much of the first couple seasons. With that out of the way, it would have been no worse than TNG, IMHO.

The TCW was a nuisance, but it could have been something worthwhile. No, what let Enterprise down what the lack of attention to detail to a franchise where fans are known to obsess about the details. B&B sold the series as this great look into a period before Kirk, before phasers and shields...and then promptly wrote the series like a Voyager sequel rather than a serious attempt at a retro series.

--------------------------
CdrMike, Overwatch Reject

That being said, I did enjoy Enterprise at times. While there was a lot of stupid, some of it was surprisingly good. Mind you, it took two seasons and a bit to get to the good, but still.

So...Yeah. I'm optimistic, but only just. So I'm definitely in the "Wait and See" group with it, too.

Eh? Enterprise opened with a story arc, or at least a Really Prominent Running Subplot, and as a result was all but unwatchable until like season 3.

(And then got canceled for its nonperformance just as it was hitting its delayed stride, because there is no justice in broadcasting.)

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

ENT was nearly unwatchable until like season 3 for reasons completely unrelated to it trying to do story arcs.

I was actually heartened by the notion they're going to keep up a running plotline, because Star Trek series that aren't DS9 have an enormously high filler-to-quality ratio. (And even DS9s isn't amazing, it's just better than the others.) I am constantly surprised by how terrible I find the vast majority of TNG to be.

I kind of want there to be a story arc. I have nothing against sci-fi shows that only have loosely bound stories. I liked Firefly well enough. But, well... when I go to re-watch Babylon 5, I skip season one and jump straight into the Shadow War. DS9, I sort of skim over all that dull stuff in the first couple seasons. Hell, when I occasionally get the urge to look in on Voyager, I jump right to the later-season Borg and transdimensional invasion storylines.

More story arcs, please. I like me some story arcs. Let me sink my teeth into something.

(Sidebar: has anyone heard anything about CBS trying to use a new Star Trek as a way to get people to sign onto their new streaming service? Because if that's not just one of those things you hear on the internet, fuck THAT noise.)

-Merc
Keep Rat

Hey, it worked for the Paramount Network. Both times!

Oh wait.

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

Matrix Dragon, J. Random Nutter

-Merc
Keep Rat

Well, he didn't direct this one, so that's presumably a start.

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

There's a lot less lens flare in this one, that's for damn sure.

For me, the big thing is that it felt like a Star Trek movie, which is more than I can say for Into Darkness. The characters did pretty well, there's some silly technobabble moments, especially at the end, but it felt like the fun Trekky style technobabble. But even when it stumbled, it wasn't horribly so.

Matrix Dragon, J. Random Nutter

Can you actually tell what the ship's bridge looks like? I've seen drawings and plans, but I've never been able to visualise what ought to be one of the most important locations in a Trek movie just from watching it. Too much shiny, too much lurching about, too much too much. <headdesk>

--
Unable to save the day: File is read-only.

Yeah, the inside of the ship is a lot easier to see this time around.

Matrix Dragon, J. Random Nutter

Nah, he turned off too many lights.

Matrix Dragon, J. Random Nutter

*looks*

Sooo... Star Fleet Engineering's been infiltrated by Romulan designers, then?

(I seem to recall designs like this for pre-TNG work, etc.)

--- Philip

	Philip J. Moyer Contributing Writer, Editor and Artist (and Moderator) -- Eyrie Productions, Unlimited CEO of MTS, High Poobah Of Artwork, and High Priest Of the Church Of Aerianne -- Magnetic Terrapin Studios "Insert Pithy Comment Here" Fandoms -- Fanart -- Fan Meta Discussions

------
Fearless creatures, we all learn to fight the Reaper
Can't defeat Her, so instead I'll have to be Her

It also bears some resemblance to the Star Trek II (the cancelled sequel series to TOS, not the movie) concept art Ralph McQuarrie did.

I can actually see a fair bit of Galaxy-class lineage in the Discovery-class, including the cardinal error of having the nacelles lower than the saucer. If the only trailer footage they show is ship-porn could they not at least make it pretty?

The last Star Trek series with really good ship designs all across the board was DS9. Voyager had a lot of successes but also a lot of failures, as did Enterprise. This thing, as others have said in the thread, looks like the weird child of Klingon and Federation engineering, with all the worst parts of both. And that CGI is 90s-era, at best. In fact, the hybrid CGI/model ships of late-era DS9 looked better than it, and DS9 had to try and portray enormous fleet battles on the budget of a low-rated network show!

But let's be real. The ship design is an easy metric to hit. Despite the people who still bitch about the Galaxy-class, all you need to do is jump over a fairly low hurdle. Our attachment to the ship will not be based on the quality of the design; it will be based on the characters and stories surrounding said ship. If the characters and stories are good, we'll love the ship. If they are not, we will cease to care.

-Merc
Keep Rat

... because no one has ever rushed out a sketchy preliminary trailer in order to hit a major con before.

Honestly, people, kvetching about the quality of the CG in this trailer is like watching one of the pencil test teasers for a Disney animated film and saying, "Man, Disney's animation quality has gone massively downhill, this isn't even in fucking color." :)

As for the design itself, as others have noted here and elsewhere, it's pretty obviously rooted in the Ralph McQuarrie concept sketches for the Enterprise in Star Trek: Phase II, the canceled 1970s revival TV series that ultimately, tortuously led to Star Trek: The Motion Picture. And, well, I have a hard time saying anything bad about a Ralph McQuarrie design.

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

I'm inherently sympathetic to this argument, but... we're six months out from the premiere date. At this point in the production timeline many shows have an episode or two already shot and ready for post.

Discovery has... a name, and about a minute of sub-par CGI. It doesn't even have a cast, or if it does they've exercised a shocking amount of information control. They almost certainly haven't started shooting yet, for something that premieres in, again, six months.

That's not necessarily a completely bad set of signs. Back in the old days they could crank out twenty-six hour-long episodes over a timeline of six to nine months. Plenty of shows still do this, such as the various CSI's and NCIS's, although that sort of grueling production schedule has become less de rigeur for non-network shows. (And yes, this is a non-network show despite the CBS label.)

But still. Somewhat troubling that this is ALL they have to show six months out.

-Merc
Keep Rat

Fuller said at SDCC that he couldn't even officially comment on the resemblance to McQuarrie's design until 'lawyers had worked out some things'.

I'm really hoping this is some sort of Klingon-Starfleet collaboration. It kinda looks like a D-7 and a Connie got in a transporter accident...

Although I'm liking the crazy fan theory rumor that the reason Discovery looks so chunky and Klingon is because it's a sort of joint venture between the Federation and the Klingons, set between The Undiscovered Country and Next Generation.

"This is probably a stupid question, but . . ."

The most important question if this is true: ridged or non-ridged Klingons?

-Merc
Keep Rat

The real irony is that my STO "main" captains a Discovery (Sovereign-class).

The timeframe you're talking about might make sense other than that. ISTR relations between the Federation and the Klingons improved after the <i>Enterprise</i>-C was lost defending a Klingon colony from Romulan aggression.

Another thought: most of the simpler, blockier ship shapes seem to be earlier in the ST universe's history.

>Or maybe they could get the guy who modeled
>this
>to overhaul the Discovery.
>
>Although I'm liking the crazy fan theory rumor that the reason
>Discovery looks so chunky and Klingon is because it's a sort of
>joint venture between the Federation and the Klingons, set between The
>Undiscovered Country and Next Generation.
>
>"This is probably a stupid question, but . . ."