First COntaCt
Consider this the warp core reactor of the mag. Because it’s where you react.
Mark Lissaman, Facebook Let’s be honest – if Gene Roddenberry came up with the notion of Star Trek in 2017 this is how it would look. Why would they make a new show in 2017 and try and make it look like it was made in the ’60s?
Adrian Cranwell-Child, Facebook Why does it have to be “traditional Trek”? As long as it holds true to the ethos and dream that Gene had back in the ’60s then that’s all that counts. Discovery is a modern show (not just in production standards) so it has to reflect the time it was made – which is certainly what TOS and TNG did.
Sean Patrick O’Malley, Facebook The whole fungus thing is ridiculous! SFX Taking a trip on mushrooms? Preposterous.
John Rutherford, Facebook Setting up the Klingons in this way was terrific. They are the Big Bad once more. I dont understand the criticism over the “new look”. I dont see it as “new” at all. I read that what we were shown was a religious sect of Klingons we just haven’t seen before. There are different “types” of Earthlings after all.
Rob Perry, Facebook I don’t have a problem with the new look Klingons. It’s simply a design update that is nowhere near as radical as the last update in The Motion Picture compared to their look in the ’60s.
Mark Shaw, Facebook Didn’t the Klingons look like they’d stepped out of an episode of the second series of Blackadder? Their costumes looked very Elizabethan. I kept expecting Edmund to pop up!
Paul Eatherton, Facebook The Klingons sound like they’re wearing really bad dentures…
Anthony J Lombardi Jr, Facebook The behaviour of the characters was just wrong for Star Trek. Burnham never would have risen to the level she was at behaving that way. Starfleet is a military organisation. Where was that military discipline and respect?
David Latham, Facebook They spent too much money. It lacks the “intimacy” of the classic Trek. Remember, 1960s Star Trek, produced by Lucille Ball, was a low-budget show. Many of its iconic effects cost pennies to create.
Discovery’s not a terrible show. It’s just your average flashy, big budget sci-fi extravaganza.
Michael Garner, Facebook It’s confusing. It’s a great show, definitely a Star Trek show, but I don’t understand them saying it’s the same universe as the others. So far the ships have looked to be so much more advanced. They had a robot piloting and laser jail. I just think it should have nothing to do with any of the other shows.
David Yates, Facebook I have no problem with the more advanced look of the show. It is made in 2017, not 1967! To make it look “dated” would have been a conceit that would have patronised the audience. Sometimes we have to suspend our disbelief and remember that it is a TV show and not a historical documentary.
Tyler Staud, Facebook The canon needed a refresh. Everything needs to be bumped up a few generations in terms of tech. Otherwise the show fails to capture a new audience and plummets into the ground again. Unfortunate... but a small sacrifice.
Melissa Molenaar, Facebook I can look past the trivial issues of aesthetic and see a story about a young woman who made a decision she thought was right that had terrible consequences.
Julio Johnson, Facebook It was like watching the best parts of all the other shows threaded together into the best fan service. I loved it.
Simon Carus, Facebook It’s like the writers haven’t watched a episode of Star Trek in their lives.
Llama God, email The only thing that stops Discovery from really being classic Trek is the way that it treats women. Which is to say, it treats them well.
Medium Atomic Weight, email In the words of the immortal Chancellor Gorkon, “You have not experienced Star Trek Discovery until you have watched it in the original Klingon.” majQa’ Netflix! SFX Are you sure you weren’t actually watching Pobol Y Cwm?
Discovery lacks the intimacy of ’60s Trek and its lowbudget effects