Originally published at: Taking a look at Star Trek: Strange New Worlds series | Boing Boing
…
If it’s anything like the other recent series it will have fantastic acting, great characters, occasionally snappy dialogue, a bevy of cringe-worthy, handwavy plot devices, and inexcusably lazy sci-fi writing.
I still do take issue with the dark metal look that DSC set as the basis for UFP ships. I know they want the vessels to seem real but also they’re characters in their own right which requires some aesthetic choices to convey the nature of its crew. Like if they revisit the Klingons that I hope they clean up their design and remove the whole baddie of the week vibe from their vessels. Also, I still personally think that the aztecing of the hulls isn’t necessary but at least it looks like they’ve improved it from DSC season 2’s designs. But over all, Strange New Worlds looks to be more fun.
ah… suspect i’m the last one to get the linguistic ‘pun’…
…character Number One, now finally named all these decades later as Lt. Commander Una Chin-Riley. As Discovery
Number_one ⇄ “Una”. Will the third in command be named Deux Drax LeZwei?
Nope, not the last. Can confirm.
I’m all in.
So like the majority of Star Trek then.
Can’t we just have a star trek show without some gatekeeper coming in and telling us it sucks without even seeing it?
I see you’re not counting Lower Decks
As much as I love the Trek universe I gave up after Voyager. I was just Trekked-out.
I’ll wait for the first season reviews before viewing. Because I think…
Yeah, I’ve been burned by Nu-Trek too many times now. I’ll withhold the benefit of the doubt until I hear evidence that it’s warranted.
The trick with watching new Star Trek series and enjoying them is to not be a Star Trek fan.
Compared to the average new sci-fi show, most Trek is a little above average, with occasional flashes of brilliance…unless you’re a Trekkie, in which case all new Trek is an abomination to the (totally fictitious) memory of a previous show.
I guess the only real question is if Star Trek fans are worse than Star Wars fans when it comes to eulogising the ‘good old days’ that never existed.
Nah. There are so many differences in tone, theme, and character that “Nu-Trek and Old-Trek don’t scratch the same itch, and I don’t perceive them to be of the same quality” is a perfectly legitimate position, and getting mad that some people don’t like the majority of the new stuff is just as bad as saying “Nu-Trek sux and you shouldn’t like it.”
It’s also a homage to Trek novelist Una McCormack - the name was first used in a novel by Greg Cox who used it both as a pun and a nod to his colleague. It migrated into the TV shows in the DISCO series 2 finale when Pike calls her Una in a single line.
And McCormack deserves the nod, she’s easily the best Trek tie-in writer.
I’m what I call a 2nd generation Trek fan, reared on reruns of TOS in the 1970s. I love that show passionately, and like to joke that I’ve forgotten more Trek trivia than sane people will ever bother to learn. I’ve watched at least some of all of the various spin-offs and reboots, and still, the original is the only one I love. TWOK aside, I’m not even much of a fan of the original cast movies.
But I try to live and let live regarding Trek fandom. I can understand why people love TNG and DS9 and the others. I try not to be “that fan” … even to people who profess loving the Abramsverse movies. As for SNW … I echo what Elmer posted before: I’ve had the Trek football pulled out from under me too many times to get pre-hyped for a new Trek show. But I do sincerely wish Captain Pike and crew a bon voyage.
I am always for more Trek. As long as the majority storylines continue to be about hope, the intersectionality of technology and society, and take the opportunity now and then to explore topics only sci-fi can get away with thanks to “aliens”, it will continue to be a net-positive to have more Trek.
And, of course, they have been absolutely hitting it out of the park with the amazing casting choices they’ve been making, which certainly helps as well.
How will we know that they have superior taste to us… /s
But anyway…
I’m not sure what the value of reviewing a show one hasn’t seen is (aka “guessing”). However I wouldn’t take an actual review of the show that says in effect “the effects, acting, characterization, is all great, but they get the science all wrong” as a negative review. It would tell you that if you don’t care about the science being “all wrong” but you do care deeply about acting and characterization that this is a show you are going to want to watch.
For me it looks like an interesting show, if I had P+ I would for sure give it a shot. I don’t have P+, so I guess I’ll wait for actual reviews before I decide.
Then again I think Star Trek(*) is full of bad scifi with the occasional great scifi, and I still find it a source of entertainment, and occasionally thought provoking. I think B5 had better scifi, but the acting (or maybe directing) wasn’t as good as Star Treks…and I enjoyed that too, but the acting (or maybe directing) got in the way of my enjoyment more then Star Trek’s frequently meh actual scifi.
Which is fine, we all have different preferences, and it is fine to find something entertaining that others don’t, or to find things others find entertaining not so entertaining.
(*) “Star Trek” mostly being the original series, the next gen, and to a lesser extent DS9 (I didn’t;t see all of it), Enterprise (I didn’t see a lot of it). I have only see the first (maybe second) episode of Discovery and didn’t fall in love with it, and haven’t seen Piccard. I haven’t seen Lower Decks although it sounds awesome, and I’m likely to subscribe to P+ at some point for that, and will fit in a sampling of other shows to decide if I want to keep P+…but life is too busy just now for that. Maybe in a few months.
Too true.
Am I the only one who saw Star Trek: Strange New World Series and thought, they’re actually doing a baseball show?