Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Star Trek: Discovery Is Returning For a Second Season (engadget.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the come-and-get-it dept.

Engaget reports that CBS' Star Trek: Discovery series is being renewed for a second season. The show has reportedly been enough of a success to justify a second season of episodes. From the report: The move comes as a vote of confidence for both the show and its platform, since it has recently aired the sixth of its fifteen-episode first season. Now, a second run of Discovery will air, presumably at some point toward the back-half of 2018. Discovery has certainly benefited from plenty of hype, since it's the first Trek show to air as a TV show since 2005. The pull of the Star Trek name was always going to be a draw, but it wasn't clear how much of a draw given the saga's lackluster popularity at the box office. CBS refused to offer numbers, but did boast that Discovery's debut lead to the highest number of sign-ups in the history of its All Access service.

6 of 478 comments (clear)

  1. whatever by ourlovecanlastforeve · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't give a shit I'm not signing up for their stupid pointless streaming service just to watch one show. 0% chance the show will remain exclusive forever. I can wait.

    1. Re:whatever by TheCarp · · Score: 5, Interesting

      A solid show maybe but, there was less Star Trek in the free episode I saw than in the first five minutes of the average Orville episode.

      I can't say anything redeemable about the free episode other than "nice graphics" but, Star Trek used to be the show that proved special effects were not all Sci Fi had to offer; so that was kind of a step backwards.

      Then I can't even really complement the special effects because of all the lens flare someone shat all over perfectly good video.

      They failed to sell me, and up to this point, I watched every single live action Trek show in existence.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    2. Re:whatever by thomst · · Score: 5, Interesting

      TheCarp opined:

      A solid show maybe but, there was less Star Trek in the free episode I saw than in the first five minutes of the average Orville episode.

      Agreed. And you're far from alone in that assessment ...

      --
      Check out my novel.
  2. It kinda sucks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I can't imagine many of those subscriptions will be around for season 2.

    The show itself kinda sucks. A lot of the technology bullshit is so far out there it's not even something you can remotely imagine as being real. There was a certain charm to the older series because you'd see stuff on the show and think "well, OK, maybe we'll see that in 50-100 years if we're lucky". Discovery is packed full of so much random crap you kinda look at it and go "uhhhh no, not gonna happen". It's like they decided to transition from futuristic-but-almost-plausible to outright space magic because that was easier to write.

    Everything else feels like a bog standard Hollywood action movie with tons of CG. It's almost well done enough that it's generally watchable, but again, it isn't Star Trek. I don't find myself thinking about the implications of what's going in the show, in fact, I don't find myself thinking very much at all when I'm watching it. It's just kinda senseless action with the Star Trek name bolted on because OMG recognizable franchise.

    I'm pretty sure it's going to get really old really fast (I'm already starting to get bored with it). Once they run out of inertia from the hype and name alone, the show is doomed.

    1. Re:It kinda sucks. by Rockoon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I 100% agree with the science issue.

      All of a sudden 20 years before Kirk and the Enterprise (reboot or not) they have a drive that teleports the ship to any known sector, and the technology is based on a network of mushroom spores that permeates the entire universe, and they first were using a GIANT TARDIGRADE as a supercomputer to control the drive, and the main character is SPOCKS ADOPTED SISTER THAT YOU NEVER HEARD OF BEFORE? AND SHE HAS A BOYS NAME?

      On top of that... its another SOAP OPERA. Instead of producing stand-alone shows every show is a continuation of a long assed story?

      The only "good" thing about the show seems to be that its not as overwhelmingly SJW as we were led to believe (we were led to believe it was like that one "fan" produced show with gratuitous 5 minute homosexual make-out scenes in half the episodes!)

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    2. Re:It kinda sucks. by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Interesting

      With the difference being that TNG is set way, way after TOS. Discovery is supposedly set before.

      TOS is set in 2200. 200 years ago, in 1800, we were still busy exploring our planet, but we had most of it mapped out. The steam engines are a new technology that boosted our progress considerably and we were progressing technologically at a speed never experienced before. People from that time would probably consider ours an utopia, mostly concerning our social achievements and the fact that we basically eliminated hunger at least in our "civilized" areas of the planet, a problem that was really huge back then, with worker famines being a constant problem. They would probably also be amazed at the way greater equality (note: We're talking about a world where a royal could still beat peasants with impunity in many "civilized" areas of the planet, and where owning people was maybe no longer considered decent and normal by some, but definitely legal in many areas). I think that would astound them more than our technical advances, like I said, they live in the age of the steam engine which was propelling advances forward faster than ever before, things were changing rapidly in that time.

      So they would probably accept that we mastered flight, even though it seems impossible to them, much like FTL-travel seems to us now. But we can consider it possible. Likewise, traveling to the moon has been though about in that time, too, with the first sci-fi novels being written, and of course traveling beyond the confines of our planets is a topic. They would be amazed that it's possible and that we did it, but they wouldn't deem it impossible or completely outlandish.

      Scroll back another 200 years to 1600 and it becomes impossible. Not only our technology, but our social advances. To a person from the 1600s, the idea of social equality of races, genders and especially religions is an alien concept they would reject on principle, as impossible. Likewise, travelling beyond the speed of wind is a concept that is absolutely alien, we are talking about a world where the fastest form of locomotion is riding on horseback, and crossing oceans is still a huge endeavor, with most of the planet still being unknown to "civilized" countries, and the idea of simply occupying and owning places you "discover", including the people on it, is considered the norm.

      TNG is what we are to the guy from the 1600s. TOS is what we are to the one from the 1800s.

      This is the difference.

      So yes, TNG gets away with space magic, because they should actually have concepts that we don't even remotely grasp. Actually, they are way, way too "mundane" in many areas.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.