Star Trek Discovery. [SPOILERS WITHIN]

Die in a fire child molester.

He sounds like a retarded. Who is Michelle? Why does he think that's Discovery? Does he ever have independent critique or is he just going to describe the trailer for us in broken Engrish?

The "transportation" effect? As you can see the Uniforms are blue! He's used t seeing Sarek older, so you know that's a change! Wrong Sarek font!

He got just about everything wrong, he thinks the augment virus gave the Klingons their ridges. And then he goes on to say that the possible android has some text on his/her head that says "ASS S(something)". He's too stupid the even get that it's "USS Shenzou".

And I'm thinking it might not be an android, but a crew member wearing a V.R. helmet.

yeah, as soon as he identified the ship as Discovery I just bailed

It must be a troll. He's going to do another video on Klingon history he claimed. That ought to be good.

Knock it off, @Dayton3 and @Diacanu .

I have a question? Why have modern incarnations of Star Trek (since TNG) used metric measurements? The original series was famous for mixing Imperial and metric system but aside from the occasional lapses (TNG using the imperial system measurement of "candlepower" in reference to brightness) modern Trek has used the metric system.

I know that Star Trek is viewed worldwide and most of the world uses the metric system but the heart and soul of Trek fandom is in the United States..

And like it or not, most Americans know the Imperial system and not the metric one.

So why bother with the metric system. ?

because the future

I hate to tell you, but....
Stardates and warp factors are meaningless bullshit under either system.

Sure they are Stardates were just added to the Captains Logs to make them sound "more official" IIRC.

And Star Trek's whole system of warp factors has seldom made sense.

But I still think its ridiculous to have Riker describe Picard in Gambit pt. 1 as "just under two meters"

IIRC, two meters is about six feet seven inches!!!!

One might as well ask, "Why set the show in the future or in space since everybody lives in the present and on Earth?"

Are you SERIOUSLY going to make that argument when your idiot country elected Donald J. Trump as its leader?

No, really. Going forward, pretty much any argument that starts with "most Americans" is automatically null and void.

By the way, when I suggested repeating the look of the original series as the Enterprise two parter did so well, I didn't mean to imply you would do it for a serious in a virtually identifical fashion as they did for that two parter.

What I had in mind was recreating the uniforms, sets, and effects of the original series in "TONE & THEME". You could upgrade the sets (not to movie era standard of course) but still upgrade them and explain them away as "the ships 20 year upgrade" or something to that effect. Change the uniforms to still be reminiscent of the original series (there are several designs online) but look better and explain it as "something that Starfleet is giving a trial run".

We won't always have Donald Trump as president.

Can we keep politics out of this, please?

Could the fact that it was set in the present be one reason StarGate SG:1 lasted so long? Longer in fact by a wide margin than any Star Trek series has yet managed?

It helped because it kept production costs lower, so ratings weren't nearly as important. However, the reason TNG was canceled was that Patrick Stewart was tired of playing Picard, and the suits weren't sure that the series could be able to continue without him.

Personally, the reason I could never get into shows like Time Trax is that they claimed to be SF, but were essentially no different than any other show set in the present day.

TNG ended at exactly the right time and had the best series finale ever other than maybe Breaking Bad.

Intelligent Americans know the metric system. It's not difficult.

Eh, it was okay. Q episodes are generally weak, IMHO.

I love Q and I like that they brought it full circle.
ETA: I even like the DS9 and VOY Q episodes.

That's nice. I don't, so what makes your opinion more valid than mine?

I didn't say it did.

I thought TNG ended because

1) Escalating actors salaries that had to be renegotiated every year as none of them were locked into multi-year contracts.

2) The original series characters were considered to have "aged out" of being able to have Star Trek movies based on them in the future.

3) A successful Star Trek movie series was thought to be more profitable than a successful tv series.

4) Both Brent Spiner and Michael Dorn had issues with their heavy makeup requirements. Spiner was complaining that years of enduring the Data makeup was damaging his skin. Note, reportedly one of Dorn's requirements for joining the cast of DS9 was that they find a makeup person who could apply his Worf makeup in only half an hour instead of the three hours he had to endure on TNG.

I'll just leave this...right...here...

Leonard Nimoy is dead. And his signature role has been filled at least adequately by new actor.

Surely you don't think that just because someone dies, their words are no longer valid.

That about wraps it up for Jesus then.

I didn't think those words were valid while he was alive.