Star Trek: Strange new worlds

[CharlesPhipps]

It is a warmed over episode of The Orville and if not for the cast, I wouldn't watch it.

A stereotype planet with a one and done story that would have been better spent on characterization for the protagonists.

[McAvoy]

Do they perhaps mean a bomb that produces subspace radiation? I suspect the writers don't know enough about Trek hyperscience to know about established terms.

Does anyone really know that to begin with? All of the series broke the rules when it came to warp.

[clearspira]

It is a warmed over episode of The Orville and if not for the cast, I wouldn't watch it.

A stereotype planet with a one and done story that would have been better spent on characterization for the protagonists.

Careful, you just came close to criticising New Trek.

[Al-1701]

A more apt comparison would probably be oil. We used oil as a source of heat and light before we began weaponizing it.

I suspect they meant by a "warp bomb" an antimatter device since "warp" has turned into a shorthand for matter-antimatter reactions in Star Trek. It's called a warp core even though it powers more than just the warp engines. An antimatter device would have some of the same aspects of a warp core, containment for the antimatter (which is probably what they detected) and a reaction chamber. However, the reaction chamber would not have the ability to contain the reaction as the point is to explode.

As for resolution being quick and the planet not being too fleshed out: welcome back to episodic, planet of the week Trek. And I think it was an effective resolution for needing to be wrapped up by the end of the hour. The core members of the Federation are races that had to learn the lessons of civilization the hard way. Here they could take advantage to tell a race "We've been where you are and you can either reap the same whirlwind or learn from our mistakes and work towards a better future that doesn't involve the near destruction of your race."

[CharlesPhipps]

Careful, you just came close to criticising New Trek.

I used to really like INTO DARKNESS before I discovered it was done by a 9/11 Truther and after that, I couldn't unsee it. I also was very disappointed by Season 4 of DISCO because they basically removed all of Michael's characterization (again) and rebooted it so she could be the Captain. I have my issues with NuTrek but none of the issues are things other fans seem to dislike.

It actually prevents me from discussing the show much on these boards because it's sort of like this. I could get deep into what I think works and doesn't work but there's no point when the other people are, "Everything is awful. The characters, the plots, the special effects, and the people who write them plus their children."

What's the point of posting anything critical if there's nothing nuanced?

[Frustration]

There's little nuance in the shows for us to be nuanced about. They've set new standards for how bad television writing can actually be - or at least that I've experienced, since I try to only watch good stuff.

[CharlesPhipps]

There's little nuance in the shows for us to be nuanced about. They've set new standards for how bad television writing can actually be - or at least that I've experienced, since I try to only watch good stuff.

Yeah, so there's no point in discussing what I liked versus I liked because every response will just be, "Yeah, but everything is shit so everything you say is pointless."

Its exhausting.

[Deledrius]

Not a perfect 10, but close enough. Maybe an 8 or 9. I enjoyed this pilot and can't wait for more.

Yeah, so there's no point in discussing what I liked versus I liked because every response will just be, "Yeah, but everything is shit so everything you say is pointless."

Its exhausting.

I feel much the same way.

[McAvoy]

There's little nuance in the shows for us to be nuanced about. They've set new standards for how bad television writing can actually be - or at least that I've experienced, since I try to only watch good stuff.

Yeah, so there's no point in discussing what I liked versus I liked because every response will just be, "Yeah, but everything is shit so everything you say is pointless."

Its exhausting.

That's my thing. If a review is nothing but looking for the negatives, and any kind of positive response is met with further negativity, it just gets so exhausting.

Fair reviews at least would show positives and negatives. You can't tell me that all of nuTrek has 100% shitty scenes.

I mean what is the point? Echo chamber effect?

[Worffan101]

I would give the episode a 7 or 8 / 10.

All characters but the security chief are fine. Mount is a good actor, Romijin underrated, NuSpock inoffensive. Nothing truly insulted my intelligence as a viewer. The stupid shit was minor and served the plot, and it was a TOS kind of stupid, not a STD kind of stupid. The security chief is so edgy she cuts herself, but fine, we can have Edgy Little Miss Obvious Augment moments instead of Stupid Neelix Moments. Pace is a bit fast.

I liked the episode concept, loved the meeting room scene (it felt like TNG ffs), the mood and tone were good, and the way Pike solved everything tied it all together. Using footage from Euromaidan on the alien planet and the Quop as a harbinger of global nuclear war was a bit lazy and unsubtle, but since when has Trek been subtle?

Best NuTrek yet by a country mile.