Star Trek: Discovery

[mechaninac]

The first 3 seasons of TNG were, with the exception of a precious few notable episodes, just mediocre and hokey bad, with characters that didn't gel together, wooden performances, lame stories, terrible and jarring (amateurish, even) musical scoring, and a general sense of antiseptic post-modern elitism; however, it wasn't purposefully bad in the same vein as STD, and later STP, in the intentional deconstructionist and twisted attitude towards the franchise in an ongoing act of vandalism for shock value.

[Seto Kaiba]

45 minutes ago, mechaninac said:

The first 3 seasons of TNG were, with the exception of a precious few notable episodes, just mediocre and hokey bad, with characters that didn't gel together, wooden performances, lame stories, terrible and jarring (amateurish, even) musical scoring, and a general sense of antiseptic post-modern elitism

Well, yeah... there's no denying that.  It didn't have anything to do with Star Trek's conception of the Federation as a utopian society, though.  Much of that was brought about by the tyrannical and borderline (sometimes actually) illegal behavior of Gene Roddenberry's incredibly toxic and amoral personal attorney Leonard Maizlish.  Maizlish forced a lot of things on TNG and even went so far as to unlawfully make edits, rewrites, and redactions to scripts himself.  TNG didn't start to improve until after Maizlish was finally banned from the set and studio premises, and Rick Berman installed to oversee production and undo Maizlish's damage.

Discovery, unfortunately, can't blame its faults on an overbearing attorney exceeding his authority.  Its creators were able to realize their vision unhindered, to which the world said "gentlemen, perhaps it is time to consider corrective lenses".

 

Edited September 27, 2020 by Seto Kaiba

[Dynaman]

18 minutes ago, Seto Kaiba said:

Well, yeah... there's no denying that.  It didn't have anything to do with Star Trek's conception of the Federation as a utopian society, though. 

 

Oh hell yes it did.  All of the faults of those first three seasons were on the shoulders of Gene and his dictates of what the Federation was like.  

[Seto Kaiba]

31 minutes ago, Dynaman said:

Oh hell yes it did.  All of the faults of those first three seasons were on the shoulders of Gene and his dictates of what the Federation was like.  

No, those were not problems with the underlying concept of the Federation as a utopian society.

The problem, as attested to by the people who created the show, was much the same problem experienced by Star Wars's sequel trilogy.  They gave the property's creator direct and largely unrestricted creative control, and then were forcibly reminded he couldn't write for sh*t... compounded by his attorney's own, unauthorized and sometimes illegal, contributions to the writing process.  The underlying concept was sound and remained a part of Star Trek for its entire successful history.  It was Gene's bizarre insistence that the Enterprise's crew be too professional to even have different opinions that caused many of his writing problems.  That's not part of the utopian premise, that's just a failure to develop characters or realize how drama works.

Edited September 27, 2020 by Seto Kaiba

[Dynaman]

Time to jump off the merry go round again.

[pengbuzz]

21 hours ago, Dynaman said:

That is exactly the attitude that is stifling Trek.  The first three seasons of TNG force fed the "Federation is utopia" meme on is and it was easily the worst Trek ever.

I would have given some clearance here for a difference of opinion, but insisting that someone wanting Trek to be Trek is "stifling" negated that. Then the insinuation that to do so is to only want "the first three seasons of TNG" went beyond the pale.

So with that...

What we want is for series' that use the Star Trek name to actually resemble what the best of Trek has been shown to be from the various series. No series was perfect, but even at their worst, they still aimed for the dream and the vision even if that aim was off and the means were not so good. Discovery wrecks that by having characters so broken that they are nearly useless. Examples: Michael Burnham is loathsome, and Lorca is simply a one-dimensional character who then becomes a one dimensional villain.

Picard is worse.

Picard takes the characters we have come to know and love and turn them into deprecated, nearly amoral husks. I could never believe that Jean-Luc Picard from TNG would ever turn into such a grotesquely manipulative and surreptitious individual; we had seen the extent to which he would allow himself  to "slide" in First Contact, but even then he pulled himself back when he saw what was happening to him. Yet this "Picard" seems to ahve no qualms about betraying a lifetime of moral values, duty and decency.

Meantime, Riker doesn't have any questions about Picard's "mission", but just goes along with his shtick?  In All Good Things", Riker's response in bringing out the Refeit Galaxy Class to rescue Picard, only to tear into him about what he's done is more how I would view Riker's response to such a stunt. Yet we're supposed to buy him just saying "you allright" and then showing up with a fleet in time to save Pot-Luc Picard from his own stupidity?

But your opinion is apparently that such thoughts "stifle Trek".

Well, since I have an opinion too, here's what I think "stifles Trek":

Trying to make it into a cheap cosplay of R-BSG that uses Trek sets and uniforms.

And with that folks, I'm done here. Thanks for having me.

-pb out.

 

Edited September 28, 2020 by pengbuzz

[JB0]

I just want to hear more about the plagiarism lawsuit.

[Seto Kaiba]

4 hours ago, JB0 said:

I just want to hear more about the plagiarism lawsuit.

There's nothing to hear, I'm afraid... CBS won by outspending the guy who sued 'em.

[mikeszekely]

Yeah... I figured I'd look into that plagiarism thing from a less hostile source. To quote the judge on the case,

"Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted because Star Trek: Discovery and Plaintiff’s Videogame are not substantially similar as a matter of law in concept, characters, settings and ‘overall feel.’ In particular, the tardigrade in Star Trek: Discovery is not substantially similar to Plaintiff’s tardigrade in concept, attributes and overall feel.

“The plots of both works are similar solely to the extent that the characters go on adventures in space, and some of the adventures involve alien tardigrades.”

[Kanedas Bike]

On 9/27/2020 at 2:49 AM, sketchley said:

I think you missed his point.  Responding with a wall of text breaking down and categorically responding to each one of the poster's sentences in a sea of negativity is what he's complaining about.  (Is it all negative?  I don't know.  TLDR.  Overkill has a way of killing the conversation.)

 

Maybe it's time for a different tack—what we liked about the show?  I'll go first:

Getting to see Michelle Yeoh kicking but on a (semi-regular) basis.

 

Thank you! All I've said is that the horse is dead, yet it constantly gets beat. And major props for trying to start a trend of positivity for those that might like all or parts of the show.

For the members that do like Discovery and or Picard maybe the Mods will allow a "I actually like Star Trek Discovery and Picard" so that they can chat in peace.

 

On 9/27/2020 at 9:05 AM, Seto Kaiba said:

Eh... I don't think even he knew what his point was.

TBH.  Yeah, he doesn't like the negativity and I get that.  The problem is that he's taking the same deeply disingenuous, gaslighting approach CBS uses by trying to argue about the "negativity" (read: "criticism and dissatisfaction") as though it somehow came into being independently rather than as a direct result of the show's content.  Essentially, he's got his cause and effect backwards for his entire argument.  The "negativity" isn't the cause of Discovery's problems and the lack of enthusiasm for it, it's a symptom of them.

I did throw him a bone by making a point about how the negativity in the show is the leading cause of the "negativity" about the show... so, y'know, right for the wrong reasons.  It felt more polite and professional to respond to his points individually than simply dismissing his post as white-knighting for CBS.

 

As I've said on a number of previous occasions in this very thread, Anson Mount was an absolute treasure as Captain Christopher Pike.  

Straight-up stole the show for the first half of season two, which is probably why they tentatively offered him his own show.

This is just LOL - I know what my point is. And again, there's nothing wrong with discussing the merits of a thing and why you like it or don't, but dude - it's damn near all you do - as articulate as you are you use your powers for evil. Don't you get exhausted of talking about how Discovery and CBS have put this stain on Star Trek? You've made the point ad nauseam, that's all I'm saying and have said before.

This thread had been dead since the end of July, then out of the blue here's a post about how CBS and Discovery suck with their half-assed attempt to put it on TV. I saw the commercials, chuckled and moved on. I didn't feel compelled to come here and talk about how silly I thought it all was.

I'm not even arguing that the show is good, but there are practically 35 pages worth of reasons why it sucks. I mean, what else is there to say about it other than feeding some insatiable need to drone on and on about it. It's baffling to me. It's like if I went out of my way to constantly talk about how terrible Star Trek V is, we all get it, there's no need to talk about how shitty a movie it is every day or in this case, a month after a conversation concerning the movie was over.

And to be clear, we don't need to provide false or faint praise. Just walk away on to something that you do like, especially after you've argued the point for the 85th time (see how I'm now repeating the exact same thing?).

I like Trek, you like Trek, collectively most people wish CBS knew what to do with Trek on TV and on the big screen, but they (CBS) don't. I hope that things improve and that's that. If they do, GREAT, we all win, but if they don't, I'm going to walk away until there's something worthy of my attention. It'd just be nice to peak peek my head into a Star Trek (and Star Wars) thread every now and again and not be hit with a vomit wall of why it's all just soooooooooo terrible. 

-b.

Edited September 28, 2020 by Kanedas Bike
spelling :)

[Seto Kaiba]

3 minutes ago, Kanedas Bike said:

This is just LOL - I know what my point is. And again, there's nothing wrong with discussing the merits of a thing and why you like it or don't, but dude - it's damn near all you do - as articulate as you are you use your powers for evil. Don't you get exhausted of talking about how Discovery and CBS have put this stain on Star Trek?

This is slightly disingenuous, isn't it?  

What I'd posted when you started complaining wasn't bashing the series, it was a recent news piece from a highly credible source and a fact-based analysis that framed the data that news piece provided in a usable context for comparison.  It's not really my fault if the objective and entirely impersonal data paints an unflattering picture.  To be frank, I don't think I was being unfair or especially unkind when I pointed out that this was the expected result either.  People didn't get (back) onto the tack of Discovery being a bad show until after you poked your oar in to complain about "negativity" in response to a factual analysis.  Even then, all I said in response to you WRT the series itself was that it was badly written and its negativity about the future was its stumbling block in being accepted by its target audience.  It was someone else who went a bit Klingon on you about it being a detriment to Star Trek as a whole.  (Though I wouldn't be able to honestly say the poster who said it didn't have a pretty good point under all that anger.)

 

44 minutes ago, Kanedas Bike said:

And to be clear, we don't need to provide false or faint praise. Just walk away on to something that you do like, especially after you've argued the point for the 85th time (see how I'm now repeating the exact same thing?).

Isn't this a tad hypocritical, given that you keep coming back to these threads to complain about the "negativity" that so offends you... even when you apparently admit it's actually well-founded?  Perhaps take your own advice?  

All that happened here was I posted a very recent news piece relevant to the series and an analysis of its contents.  You got triggered and started a fuss fit that got people back to arguing its merits or lack thereof.  That, my friend, is on YOU.

[Kanedas Bike]

Well first, I'm very happy to have had a hand in making "disingenuous" the word of the week.

In summation, "all" you innocently did was post about how CBS and by logical extension Discovery, by posting to a "fact-based" analytical data-driven article about CBS's failings in the Star Trek Discovery thread and I "all" I innocently did was state my response to that post.  

That said, by all means split the hair on that one post if you want, I'm calling it as I see it.

And along the lines of missing the point, I purposefully wrote "see how I'm now repeating the exact same thing" in an effort to draw attention to the similarity in the tone your posts carry in this thread. It was hypocritical on purpose to prove a point about how senseless it can be to say the same thing as if it's a song playing on Repeat 1. The show is bad (one or more of the following is bad; writing, actors, characters, story, script, effects, etc.) CBS is bad. We. Get. It. I promise you, we get it. Like months ago. Got it. Box is checked. 

And yes, the constant, or consistent, negativity sometimes annoys me, it's annoying to read this sucks and that sucks and that thing failed and this is dumb and that is dumb and, and, and, and. After I added my response a huge part of me wished that I hadn't, but what can I say, I'm not a Vulcan with suppressed emotions. Especially when I see or know that there are some people that might want to discuss what they like about a thing, but can't because they're drowned out by the chorus of "IT SUCKS", whether I'm one of those people or not. I'm not in any way shape or form insulted by that. I'll wear it as a badge of honor, or Starfleet insignia.

-b.

[Seto Kaiba]

Whatever, man.  I've got not stake in your discontent. 

The reason I felt the article from Variety might be of interest here was because there's been a fair amount of curiosity in the Star Trek fandom on Facebook and elsewhere about how the show is doing in purely objective terms, given CBS is oddly reluctant to discuss it even with their own shareholders.  Nothing gets people talking like an unanswered question, y'know?

When there is something to be positive about, you will no doubt see positivity.  Until then... well... best of luck? 

 

(Incidentally, the word of the week from my calendar is "phlogiston"... not one I'll get a chance to use in conversation unless I talk to someone researching alchemy.)

 

[mikeszekely]

16 minutes ago, Seto Kaiba said:

The reason I felt the article from Variety might be of interest here was because there's been a fair amount of curiosity in the Star Trek fandom on Facebook and elsewhere about how the show is doing in purely objective terms, given CBS is oddly reluctant to discuss it even with their own shareholders.  Nothing gets people talking like an unanswered question, y'know?

Be honest, though... were you really being objective?  Presenting the ratings for a Thursday re-broadcast of a show that's been available for three years on other platforms and pointing out how much worse they are than the ratings for any other Trek's episode on the day it first aired when that was the only way to watch it does use objective facts, but it's presented in a way to make Discovery look bad with what's really more of an apples and oranges comparison.  And, whether intended or not, your original post came across like you were gloating over Discovery's implied failure.

30 minutes ago, Seto Kaiba said:

(Incidentally, the word of the week from my calendar is "phlogiston"... not one I'll get a chance to use in conversation unless I talk to someone researching alchemy.)

Or a Spelljammer fan.

[Seto Kaiba]

2 hours ago, mikeszekely said:

Be honest, though... were you really being objective?  Presenting the ratings for a Thursday re-broadcast of a show that's been available for three years on other platforms and pointing out how much worse they are than the ratings for any other Trek's episode on the day it first aired when that was the only way to watch it does use objective facts, but it's presented in a way to make Discovery look bad with what's really more of an apples and oranges comparison.

As noted here and elsewhere, it was CBS themselves who promoted Discovery's introduction to their broadcast schedule as a series premiere and had it listed as a new episode in the TV listings.  That would, at least in terms of how they chose to classify it, make it an apples-to-apples comparison with the first-run broadcast ratings for previous Star Trek titles.

That it is technically a rerun is a fair point, albeit I would argue that its rerun status is largely negated by four key factors:

1. Star Trek has, historically, seen consistently strong ratings performance in reruns due to the strength of its fanbase and broad appeal.
2. Star Trek: Discovery has never actually had a run on network television... it was exclusive to a streaming service.
3. Star Trek: Discovery was previously locked behind the CBS All Access paywall in its primary market (North America), with no "Free" option, leaving a lot of potential viewers who were interested in the series but were unwilling to shell out for another streaming service for just one show with no way to follow it.  This was, for a nontrivial percentage of the show's target audience, a genuine premiere in the sense that it was their first actual opportunity to watch it.
4. CBS has an almost literal captive audience due to various states of lovkdown or quarantine in the US.  Folks are staying in and watching more TV, which should have been extremely favorable conditions to launch a broadcast run of a "new" series.

 

Quote

And, whether intended or not, your original post came across like you were gloating over Discovery's implied failure.

It was, in all honesty, the kind of "I told you so" that nobody is happy to deliver.  It was obviously a bad idea, but they did it anyway.

I'm far from happy about it.  Rolling out the most expensive Star Trek series ever produced for a broadcast debut only to have it outperformed by gameshow and crime drama reruns is BAD for the long-term health of the franchise.  Investor confidence in Star Trek is already suffering due to Netflix and Amazon's disappointment with their respective Star Trek licenses and the lack of merchandising support for either new series.  The more they double down on their mistakes, the harder it'll be to get new Star Trek approved and funded.  We've seen some of the damage already, like CBS being unable to secure funding for the Section 31 series, Star Trek: Picard getting a much smaller budget than CBS hoped for from Amazon, and the still-in-limbo Strange New Worlds.  I want there to still be a Star Trek franchise after Kurtzman and Chabon's contracts expire in a few years.

Edited September 28, 2020 by Seto Kaiba

[Chronocidal]

Aside from that judge deserving to be tarred and feathered for such a bizarrely inept and delusional decision, I'm checked out of Trek enough at this point that I'm just back to enjoying the parts I enjoy, with the occasional popcorn munching session as I watch more cars of the train catch fire.  Doesn't make me feel any better for the guy who may have gotten steamrolled into bankruptcy by CBS though.

As funny as the ratings are at first glance, I'm not putting much weight behind them, because they're really mostly irrelevant after this long.

[Thom]

Can't wait until we get some actual episodes to talk about...

[renegadeleader1]

On 9/27/2020 at 5:56 PM, mechaninac said:

The first 3 seasons of TNG were, with the exception of a precious few notable episodes, just mediocre and hokey bad, with characters that didn't gel together, wooden performances, lame stories, terrible and jarring (amateurish, even) musical scoring, and a general sense of antiseptic post-modern elitism; however, it wasn't purposefully bad in the same vein as STD, and later STP, in the intentional deconstructionist and twisted attitude towards the franchise in an ongoing act of vandalism for shock value.

The first 3 seasons of TNG were, with the exception of a precious few notable episodes were still entertaining scifi television and fun to watch. If those episodes were objectively bad as internet revisisionist cool kids like you claim they are, TNG never would have made it out of it's first season let alone get seven seasons total.

 

When all is said and done I can go back and watch TNG's early episodes and be entertained. I can't say the same about Discovery.

[mechaninac]

18 minutes ago, renegadeleader1 said:

The first 3 seasons of TNG were, with the exception of a precious few notable episodes were still entertaining scifi television and fun to watch. If those episodes were objectively bad as internet revisisionist cool kids like you claim they are, TNG never would have made it out of it's first season let alone get seven seasons total.

 

When all is said and done I can go back and watch TNG's early episodes and be entertained. I can't say the same about Discovery.

That's sophistry, and you know it!... 1987-1989 (heck, the entirety of the era in which it originally ran) were a completely different television landscape from what it is today.  Back then, shows had far, far more leeway to overcome wonky starts and mediocre ratings -- a honeymoon period, of sorts, to find their voice, work out the kinks, and find an audience; add to that the much lesser availability of alternate entertainment choices on broadcast and cable at the time, and the fact that it was the return of Star Trek to first run television since 1969 guaranteed its survival through its teething stage.

I never said they were not entertaining in their own right; but rose colored glasses of nostalgia notwithstanding, the first 3 seasons of TNG were objectively bad, just not objectionably so (which is what makes them watchable on repeat viewings).

[Seto Kaiba]

31 minutes ago, renegadeleader1 said:

The first 3 seasons of TNG were, with the exception of a precious few notable episodes were still entertaining scifi television and fun to watch. If those episodes were objectively bad as internet revisisionist cool kids like you claim they are, TNG never would have made it out of it's first season let alone get seven seasons total.

To say nothing of hanging onto an average viewership of over 10 million the whole time...

 

 

58 minutes ago, Thom said:

Can't wait until we get some actual episodes to talk about...

Discovery's third season is supposed to hit CBS All Access two weeks from Thursday.

I've got no intention of reactivating my CBS All Access subscription for it, but it'll be interesting to see if there's any meat on the bones of the widely circulated theory that Discovery's third season developed its core premise from the unproduced Star Trek: Final Frontier animated series that was pitched back in 2006.  That series pitch by David Rossi, Doug Mirabello, and José Muñoz featured a future Federation that was well into its decline after someone destroyed most of subspace with omega particle detonations.  The promo materials for DSC's third season talk about an event called "the Burn" that apparently left most of the Federation's worlds cut off from each other and the USS Discovery's indicated to be a ship that isn't hindered by "the Burn" (due to its spore drive?) and can act more freely than what's left of Starfleet.

Edited September 29, 2020 by Seto Kaiba

[JB0]

On 9/28/2020 at 9:48 AM, Seto Kaiba said:

There's nothing to hear, I'm afraid... CBS won by outspending the guy who sued 'em.

 

On 9/28/2020 at 10:27 AM, mikeszekely said:

Yeah... I figured I'd look into that plagiarism thing from a less hostile source. To quote the judge on the case,

"Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted because Star Trek: Discovery and Plaintiff’s Videogame are not substantially similar as a matter of law in concept, characters, settings and ‘overall feel.’ In particular, the tardigrade in Star Trek: Discovery is not substantially similar to Plaintiff’s tardigrade in concept, attributes and overall feel.

“The plots of both works are similar solely to the extent that the characters go on adventures in space, and some of the adventures involve alien tardigrades.”

 

 

Dangit, that is bullcrap. The dude deserves to be paid.

[mikeszekely]

36 minutes ago, JB0 said:

Dangit, that is bullcrap. The dude deserves to be paid.

Does he, though?  I'm not familiar with his game and can't personally comment on how similar they were, but the impression I got was that they're less similar than, say, Gobots and Transformers.  And last I checked Marvel/Sunbow didn't give anything to Hanna-Barbera...

[JB0]

1 minute ago, mikeszekely said:

Does he, though?  I'm not familiar with his game and can't personally comment on how similar they were, but the impression I got was that they're less similar than, say, Gobots and Transformers.  And last I checked Marvel/Sunbow didn't give anything to Hanna-Barbera...

As I recall, the cast was identical(like, they cast actors to match his game's race and gender in every role), and "giant blue tardigrade that warps ships through space" is... pretty distinctive.

[Seto Kaiba]

38 minutes ago, JB0 said:

Dangit, that is bullcrap. The dude deserves to be paid.

Very probably, yeah... given that CBS did at one point admit to access and copying in some of their filings.  They argued that it was de minimis access and copying, though (i.e. too trivial an amount to merit consideration).

 

Just now, mikeszekely said:

Does he, though?  I'm not familiar with his game and can't personally comment on how similar they were, but the impression I got was that they're less similar than, say, Gobots and Transformers.  And last I checked Marvel/Sunbow didn't give anything to Hanna-Barbera...

I gave the game in question a whirl, and in my estimation they're not as similar as some of the articles make it out to be.

There are a number of superficial/aesthetic similarities in terms of character art and the bare fact of a giant blue tardigrade that travels instantly through time and space, but it's mostly just at that superficial level.  So, in all fairness, I can kind of see the case for arguing de minimis access and copying.  They didn't have anything about an extradimensional plane of fungal life in Tardigrades the way they do in Star Trek: Discovery... the tardigrade in Discovery's more like a Navigator from Dune than the tardigrade in Tardigrades in terms of how it's used.

Since there is at least some evidence to suggest Tardigrades may have inspired Discovery's first season, it would've been polite to throw him a bone and maybe a modest royalty check... but corporations seldom concern themselves with that kind of thing when IP rights are involved.

[JB0]

5 minutes ago, Seto Kaiba said:

Since there is at least some evidence to suggest Tardigrades may have inspired Discovery's first season, it would've been polite to throw him a bone and maybe a modest royalty check... but corporations seldom concern themselves with that kind of thing when IP rights are involved.

As I recall, they ignored him until they couldn't anymore, then promised not to sue him for stealing their tardigrade and hung up.

[Seto Kaiba]

4 minutes ago, JB0 said:

As I recall, they ignored him until they couldn't anymore, then promised not to sue him for stealing their tardigrade and hung up.

I recall reading something to that effect, yeah.

That kind of thing is fairly typical in cases like this, though.  Like how FASA ignored YEARS of cease and desist notices before things finally boiled over in a lawsuit that nearly cost them their entire BattleTech franchise.

[mikeszekely]

9 minutes ago, JB0 said:

"giant blue tardigrade that warps ships through space" is... pretty distinctive.

But here's the crux of it... you can't copywrite an idea, only the expression of the idea.  I can't re-write and sell Harry Potter, but there's nothing stopping me from writing a book about a young boy who leaves his life with his ordinary family to go a secret wizard school (except for laziness and/or not being that great of a writer).  Hence why two competing cartoon and toylines about two factions of alien robots continuing their battle on Earth with the ability to turn into vehicles dominated my early childhood without one of them suing the other into oblivion.

8 minutes ago, Seto Kaiba said:

There are a number of superficial/aesthetic similarities in terms of character art and the bare fact of a giant blue tardigrade that travels instantly through time and space, but it's mostly just at that superficial level.  So, in all fairness, I can kind of see the case for arguing de minimis access and copying.  They didn't have anything about an extradimensional plane of fungal life in Tardigrades the way they do in Star Trek: Discovery... the tardigrade in Discovery's more like a Navigator from Dune than the tardigrade in Tardigrades in terms of how it's used.

Yeah, I'm no lawyer, but it's my understanding that to win a copywrite case you have to prove that the alleged infringement is substantially similar.  The game and Discovery simply weren't substantial enough, especially when we're talking one little guy going up against a huge corporation.

[JB0]

3 minutes ago, Seto Kaiba said:

I recall reading something to that effect, yeah.

That kind of thing is fairly typical in cases like this, though.  Like how FASA ignored YEARS of cease and desist notices before things finally boiled over in a lawsuit that nearly cost them their entire BattleTech franchise.

But FASA never responded to a C&D with "Don't worry, we promise not to sue you for stealing our mech, gottagonicetalkingwithyoubye"

Which is what really caused the lawsuit. The guy readily admitted he was furious at his treatment and was going to do whatever it took to get this to court, which was difficult given he was in... Egypt, I think it was.

[kalvasflam]

Not Discovery related, but looks like Patrick Stewart has found his calling at long last.

Pushing for the ordinary Uber drivers on behalf of a mega corporation. 

But at least the commercial was funny.

[Dobber]

BWAHAHA!
“Oh I am my daddy”

”wait...what?”

Chris

 

Edited October 5, 2020 by Dobber

[Seto Kaiba]

The "air" date for Discovery's 3rd season feels like a bit of a missed opportunity in hindsight... if it dropped on Sunday the 11th they would be debuting it on Federation Day, but it's dropping on the 15th.

(Federation Day being the anniversary of the Federation's founding, October 11th being the date as per materials created for Star Trek: Generations.)

[Mommar]

32 minutes ago, Seto Kaiba said:

The "air" date for Discovery's 3rd season feels like a bit of a missed opportunity in hindsight... if it dropped on Sunday the 11th they would be debuting it on Federation Day, but it's dropping on the 15th.

(Federation Day being the anniversary of the Federation's founding, October 11th being the date as per materials created for Star Trek: Generations.)

As if  anybody working on the show pays attention.

[Seto Kaiba]

39 minutes ago, Mommar said:

As if  anybody working on the show pays attention.

A fair point, I was just saying it's a missed opportunity to earn some nerd cred for their show from the Star Trek fans they're trying to attract back to the franchise after the net losses of the last two seasons.

[pengbuzz]

8 hours ago, Dobber said:

BWAHAHA!
“Oh I am my daddy”

”wait...what?”

Chris

 

Maybe they should just have a tv series starring Mark Hamill and Patrick Stewart playing these roles.:D

[Mog]

17 minutes ago, pengbuzz said:

Maybe they should just have a tv series starring Mark Hamill and Patrick Stewart playing these roles.:D

Can we add Kevin Conroy to that mix and just have them voice act?  Hamill could be some crazy agent of chaos, Conroy could play a rich guy with TONS of issues, and Stewart could play some cold-hearted dude with a sad backstory.

(Moggy’s still not bitter over never seeing Stewart play Mr. Freeze! )

. . . In other Trek tangents, I always thought one of the guest actresses in TOS sounded like Dr. Pulaski from TNG.  Turns out it actually was the same actress in both TOS and TNG.

Yes, Moggy’s an idiot that only learned and confirmed that yesterday.