STD vs Orville

>Star Trek: Discovery (STD) Trailer
youtube.com/watch?v=oWnYtyNKPsA

>Orville Trailer
youtube.com/watch?v=EmdShv8mc0w

Which one will you be watching and why will it be the one that comes closer to capturing true Trek akaOrville?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=TVEhDrJzM8E
edition.cnn.com/2016/08/10/entertainment/cbs-star-trek-discovery/
ew.com/tv/2017/06/26/star-trek-discovery-storyline/
youtube.com/watch?v=fs-j6qBJ1ns
youtube.com/watch?v=VtHM77IRkus
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>that door gag
Holy kek this is gonna be good.

Discovery looks nothing like star trek. Its gonna be unfiltered shit.

Neither

At least say Orville looks like Trek.

>Near miss with another spacecraft sounds like two cars beeping their horns at each other
As a radio fan I'm a real sucker for audio gags, that made me chuckle

And what's the first song that plays in the trailer when the credits start up around 1:26? It sounds like it might be original and it's awesome. T-Rex was a good choice too.

youtube.com/watch?v=TVEhDrJzM8E

Orville is the natural evolution of the liberal fantasyland that Star Trek was. Not that I am implying that is a bad or good thing, in fact it may even be a great thing, but I do wonder how many jabs at Trump will be included per episode.

I agree, but its Seth MacFarlane so he will probably find a way to ruin it.

Family Guy is unabashedly racist (see Injun alternate reality and the way they constantly make fun of asians). Set is /ourguy/.

What was your favorite part of the trailer?

Bashir's father finally achieving something in his life.

kek, that guy is like the Eric Roberts of sci-fi

They probably taught him engineering in prison.

Star Trek Orville looks like it will be great, adventure in space with a tad bit of comedy thrown in
Not sure about that other Discovery show though

>with a tad bit of comedy thrown in
It's meant to be a comedy.

I'll give Orville a shot. I dislike McFarlene's work, but I have to admit Orville feels and looks more like Star Trek than STD does, which is nothing like Star Trek by the look of things.

Why do you compare startrek to star wars? The first one is clearly a starwars show and the second is a star trek one

>everything is either star wars or star trek.

Please don't tell me that the first thing you thought during watching this new std trailer is not "wow this looks like a good star wars show". It does not remind me of Star Trek, not one bit. It's action this, action that, Star Trek was never about action

Yup, that's definitely the implication that a dim person would take from that.

it's clearly JJ Trek style
Which makes sense since the only reason this show exists is because based JJ took the corpse o Trek and breath new life into it

It's really not like star wars. It looks like a generic sci-fi action series with some pseudo intellectual jaden smith tier shit thrown in.

That sounds like the description of the new Star Warss

It's exactly star wars, the lead negress is Luke/Rei and Sarek is Obi Wan/Luke.

The Orville made me laugh.

The kind of laugh that you make when someone you hate cracks a joke that's actually funny.

That Star Trek trailer, I fail to see how it resembles Star Trek and not a sci-fi movie.

What is even the main focus of this Star Trek compared to others? With Deep Space nine there was a space station and then a war, with Voyager, stranded in the far uknown space, with Enterprise it was the beginning.

If this one is after Enterprise, does it still consider it canon? Shouldn't Archer be there?

It's ten years before TOS, that means Archer is long dead. It will be about, uh action? I don't know the trailer doesn't say much except boom boom boom

Apart from the fact that this is nearly a century after enterprise (so no archer), the rest of your post is what everyone is wondering about.

>laughing at unfunny things

>cringey hapa who hates God
>making anything of value

Discovery looks kino, I just wish they'd have gone a different route with one of the actors.

>every line of a comedy should be funny
>>cringey hapa who hates God
It's not like Gene was a monk

Isnt it set in JJ verse trek though? Archer was still alive during Star Trek 09, so will be alive during Discovery.

According to rumors, it's a new timeline entirely, made to look like JJtrek to appeal to normies, and the words prime timeline being thrown in to appeal to trekkies.

Jesus Christ, that completely slipped by me. Archer was what? 200 years old, and Portos was 100?
I am glad JJ is off to ruin SW,

>Isnt it set in JJ verse trek though?
No, it just looks like it. It starts in the main timeline, which they're going to somehow reboot during the first episode

>The new TV series will be set in the "prime" universe -- meaning not in the J.J. Abrams movie universe -- and takes place ten years before the start of Captain Kirk's five-year mission.
edition.cnn.com/2016/08/10/entertainment/cbs-star-trek-discovery/

>Burnham [has] spent a lot of time on Vulcan, but she’s human,” Harberts says. “Sarek [Spock’s father, played by James Frain] plays an important role in her life, which has been completely planned until she makes a very difficult choice that sends her life on a very different path. When we meet her, she’s the First Officer on the Starship Shenzhou [captained by Philippa Georgiou, played by Michelle Yeoh]. And Burnham’s choice that we’re alluding to is most difficult choice you can make — it affects her, affects Starfleet, affects the Federation, it affects the entire universe. That choice leads her to a different ship, the Discovery [helmed by Captain Lorca, played by Jason Isaacs] and there we begin what Gretchen and I call our ‘second pilot.'
ew.com/tv/2017/06/26/star-trek-discovery-storyline/

The timing is also stupid, because 11 years before Kirk's mission, The Cage takes place, so The Enterprise may be out there somewhere.

The timeline splits at the begin of Kirk. By setting the show before Kirk it's in standard timeline.

I don't get it.
the JJ reboot was a great occasion, you could have TNG 2.0 except completely different because..new timeline and whatever tech you wanted.

A prequel and well all know how it's going to end

>tech better than what comes after
>fucking with the canon

Sometimes when you're hot you're cold.

Sometimes when you're dead you're alive.

Sometimes when you're left you're right.

Sometimes when you're deep you're shallow.

Star Trek Discovery actually does look Prime timeline in my opinion. The problem is it doesn't look TOS. Looks more like DS9 era mashed up with ENT era mashed with Mass Effect.

The Shenzhou looks like an Akira class starship had a baby with the Mass Effect universe.

Interiors, Uniforms etc are pretty much all ENT though.

That being said, there is one quick shot in the new STD trailer of what looks to be a Cage era uniform.

>the JJ reboot was a great occasion
No it wasn't. It was a disrespectful cunt trying to turn Star Trek into Star Wars because he always loved Star Wars and thought he'd never get to make a Star Wars movie. He single-handedly ensured we'd never get a decent Star Trek show ever again, because they'll just keep trying to ape him to make as much money as he did, but it won't work, because the normies won't stick with it (as we can see from the 3rd films box office).

Don't even bother responding, I have no interest in what anyone who likes JJ Trek thinks about anything.

I honestly don't know why people are pissed about the updated Klingons.

Klingons were always fucking shit and looked like shit. They at least now look sort of alien and the redesign of their shit is fucking cool. The new Bat'leth is fucking dope.

I honestly hope we get redesigns of all the Trek aliens. Honestly, TNG/DS9 era redesigns looked like ass 99% of the time. (God the TNG era Romulans and Andorians)

...

>Don't even bother responding, I have no interest in what anyone who likes JJ Trek thinks about anything.
How can debate exists if you make a point and don't allow any sort of answer?

>I honestly don't know why people are pissed about the updated Klingons.
Because we're being honest and (You)'re not.

Klingon space helmet is some fucking Enclave shit right there.

Communists

New Klingons look legit better than shitty TNG/DS9 Klingons.

Hell even the JJ klingons were better than the 90s Klingons. At least the Klingons in Into Darkness actually fit the lore better (Klingons being bigger than humans, several times more strong etc).

Ffs in DS9 Ezri Dax kicks Klingon ass in hand to hand combat.

>Space Truckin'
pure coincidence

youtube.com/watch?v=fs-j6qBJ1ns

When it aint broke, don't fix it.

Ds9 klingons looked great. ENT andorians looked great.

...

youtube.com/watch?v=VtHM77IRkus

Why is the deflector dish pink?

>macfarlane
i'd rather masturbate with barbed wire for the rest of my life than watch anything involving him

>STD
was it intentional?

According to the panel there is TOS era Klingons and normal looking Klingons as well.

They talked about how different Klingon houses have different looks and different cultures.

Was it FASA or STB Klingons where the Klingon empire was actually made up of multiple races all serving under the main Klingon race?

>0:37
alien reference?

A reminder that we have seen the sword of Kahles, the first Bat'leth so this ancient Klingon excuse doesn't justify this existing.

>Casting Star Trek actors
>Hiring Star Trek directors
>Primarily inspired by TNG, objectively the best series
I think Seth is a smug douche with a punchable face, but this is the kind of shit people in /trek/ threads would love.

>Discovery looks like an absolute mess of dumbed-down hollow action
>Orville is full of unfunny humour

I JUST WANT SOME GOOD TREK

>being a slave to visual continuity
I bet you think the mirror universe episodes of ENT are good.

They are ancient Klingons.

>Not caring about canon
I bet you think Enterprise ever did anything good

Were you angry when TNG added head ridges to Romulans?

>thinking visual continuity and canon are the same thing

I should hate shit like pic related but the comfortable ambient sound of the Enterprise always keeps me immersed

STD looks like your average action show. thats not what star trek is about

No, and here's why: TOS designs were limited by their budget, e.g. Klingons, when Gene finally got the money in TMP to do it how he always intended, he did, that design was stuck to. If the Romulans were in the TOS movies he would have fixed them too. These redesigns are not about making them look realistic, they're just changing them because they don't like Star Trek and want to make their own thing, but the brand will bring in too much money to ignore completely.

It's not an issue of visual continuity, that's just how you're framing it, they are ignoring the canonical reason that type of sword is called a Bat'leth and just completely redesigning it because they want to and don't give a shit about canon, if they're even aware of that fact at all, which I sincerely doubt.

t. never watched DS9

So why didn't they update Vulcans to have head ridges too, since they're essentially the same species?

They aren't supposed to be the same, evolution exists. Look how different their cultures are, they wanted them to be visually different too instead of just different uniforms.

you'd think so, and yet here we are
worst timeline

Vulcans appeared in the TOS movies, it wasn't a change that Gene intended like when he fixed Klingons and Romulans personally, as was previously mentioned.

Just make Star Trek: Aventine
Would be hundred times better than what we are about to get.

How different are you compared to humans from 2000 years ago?

>*eerie piano*
>I'd looove to change the worrrrld

DROPPED

Shit looks awful. But the "le deep monologue" from the main character at the beginning of the trailer sounds like something a 13 year old hip hop fan would write. I kept waiting for Jay Z to show up and go "Uh... Uh.... Uh...Yeah.. Uh..." in between the sentences.

Keep in mind Braga is an EP on Orville

We're taller, we live longer, we have higher rates of autism. No doubt there's a lot more non-obvious differences too, and countless advances in our immune systems. But then we didn't move planets and experience completely different selection pressures than their ancestors like they did.

*cough* white and black people *cough*
both still recognisable as being human even though they are differences due to evolution and culture. also when did the vulcan romulus split occur? surely not million of years ago

also there's an OST episode where Spock is assumed to be a romulan spy by a crew member because vulcans and romulans are identical physically, because at that time no humans had actually seen a romulan

That's exactly what Trek is about.

Aand dropped

>Orville has Cassidy Yates and I think bashir's dad

clearly the real trek here

Both look like absolute shit.

Orville could have been great, a Galaxy Quest style series would work, sadly the shit sad jokes we've seen in the trailers and how MacFarlane can't even deliver a single one-liner with any kind of timing means it's just going to be painful to watch.

This proves my point. You're willing to engage in mental gymnastics for the things you watched as a child, but not as an adult.

>we have higher rates of autism.
thats an assumption, today we're better at recognising it, you maybe as well same we have less demo possession than 2k years ago.

>But then we didn't move planets and experience completely different selection pressures than their ancestors like they did.
over 2000 years even if there is a huge section pressure in one group over another we still won't see much change, evolution takes millions of years not a few thousands

>because vulcans and romulans are identical physically
How do they know that if...
>because at that time no humans had actually seen a romulan
?

>mental gymnastics
You're just embarrassing yourself, I answered your question and you have no response.

Google "Darwin's finches"

yep got both, I mean wtf that dipshit is genuinely making a better trek then w/e std has going on, its not right it not fair, Fuuuucccck I need The Sisko to explain this shit

Waited so long for a new trek and it's fucking flare wars. Why couldn't they have made a post tng/ds9/voy show instead. Fucking retards.

Orville because Seth is an actual Star Trek Fan and it's clearly his atempt to make something similar

dude that faggot may be meming but he's right, a major plot point in balance of terror is that spock looks exactly like a romulan

>contrarianposting

That and every Romulan shown in the TOS films looked just like Vulcans. Then Enterprise, a show that spent a multi-episode arc on why Klingons have head ridges showed their era Romulans have them too.

The Orville looks like trash but depressingly McFarlane seems to understand Trek better than the people behind STD

>>because vulcans and romulans are identical physically
>How do they know that if...
>>because at that time no humans had actually seen a romulan
>?
i'm talking about the OST episode where Romulans are first shown... obviously after we see tham no screen and they are indistinguishable from spock... hence the whole point of the episode......

how long does it take for a finch to mature? a year? thats 2000 generations. it takes ~20 years for a human probably even longer for a Vulcan. secondly when did the finch populations become segregated from each other? darwin didn't land on a island and then over the course of a few months see one species specialise into several

*similar
they always had differences, watch the episode where they steal the cloaking device for more obvious differences

no really? of course their the same, this is a dumb argument we are all agreeing

Stop with this lens flare crap!

Smearing light all over the screen doesn't make your visuals look modern.

One has a Studio model, The other doesn't

you mean watch the enterprise incident yea? one of the most popular of all trek, come on, the ent romulan stuff was one of the only things they did that was ok, of course their the same speices this is a stupid argument

Braga wrote some pretty good TNG eps. If he can reign himself in a bit, he might actually be a positive for that show.

Did you look it up or did you make an assumption based on their name? Peter and Rosemary Grant spent 30 years studying them and tracked the changes in the size of their beaks due to changes in the availability of sources of foods over time. I was proving you wrong that physical changes take millions of years. Even though you're also ignoring that we're taller than our ancestors, another physical change that didn't take millions of years.

case closed, I am so fucking angry