Do you really have to pay CBS $9.99 a month to stream this? If so, I am definitely NOT interested.

In 300 years life expencty is 130,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,70 is the new 30.

@Knixon said:

Really? Actually this looks better than what I saw in the promo.

http://scontent.cdninstagram.com/t51.2885-15/e35/c0.54.480.480/19120229_1142360132537360_305983163908227072_n.jpg?ig_cache_key=MTUzNjQyNzE2MTgwNDU2ODQwMg%3D%3D.2.c

She's 55 already. Kate Mulgrew was 40 to 47 for Voyager. Patrick Stewart was 47 to 54 for TNG. Michelle Yeoh is ALREADY older than Stewart was at the END of TNG, and she's 15 years older than Mulgrew was at the start of Voyager. Unless her ship is just a freighter or something, that doesn't strike me as good captain material. She might be about at mandatory retirement age or beyond, for that kind of duty.

As for the TV-MA rating, that seems to be pretty clearly because the writers/producers/etc intend to explore some "alternate sexuality" etc. as a main purpose of the show, at least as far as they're concerned. That isn't why most people will be watching it, at least those that actually do. But it seems to be a big part of why most of the production people are making it. Maybe they really just wanted to make another "Girls" or something, but the only way they could get money from a studio was to call it Star Trek?

In 300 years life expencty is 130,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,70 is the new 30.

@Raymondoz2007 I am getting really tired of this "Michelle Yeoh is too old" stuff. So she's 55. That doesn't make her character unable to command a Starship. Besides, to tell you the truth, Michelle being involved in Discovery is the reason why I'm going to watch the show.

The MA rating may have something to do with the gay couple, but I'm beginning to think that CBS is milking the "hey, if we make the show sexier because we are on a streaming channel more people will watch".

@PhelpsFan said:

@Raymondoz2007 I am getting really tired of this "Michelle Yeoh is too old" stuff. So she's 55. That doesn't make her character unable to command a Starship. Besides, to tell you the truth, Michelle being involved in Discovery is the reason why I'm going to watch the show.

The MA rating may have something to do with the gay couple, but I'm beginning to think that CBS is milking the "hey, if we make the show sexier because we are on a streaming channel more people will watch".

If that's true, which I suspect also, then it does seem to be at least partly a grab for something like "Girls" like I said, rather than the producers seriously going for another Star Trek.

@Raymondoz2007 said:

In 300 years life expencty is 130,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,70 is the new 30.

Maybe for Vulcans. There's never been any suggestion that humans lived anything like that long, either in TOS or after.

And anyway, if theoretically "70 is the new 30," shouldn't Michelle Yeoh look closer to 30 than to 70? (Since they have to cast actual humans from the present who don't live to 130, that means they should have cast an actual 30-year-old and SAID that she's 70.) But I wouldn't be surprised if Michelle Yeoh is largely "stunt casting" anyway, just to get some people to watch because of name recognition. "Nobody" knew who Shatner, Nimoy, etc were, before 1966.

@fatdogtavern said:

Do you really have to pay CBS $9.99 a month to stream this? If so, I am definitely NOT interested.

As others have noted, it's going to be on various online "pirate" sites very quickly.

@Knixon I hate to admit it, but it IS stunt casting having Michelle on the show, but I'm such a big fan of hers that I'll watch anything she appears it. Going a little OT, have you ever seen the ScFi movie Sunshine? It was directed by Danny Boyle and besides Michelle, it has Chris Evans, Rose Boyle, Benedict Wong, Cliff Curtis, Mark Strong, Cillian Murphy, Troy Garity, and Hiroyuke Sanada in the cast. I think it's a great movie.

I've seen the movie, but it was pretty dumb in several ways. For a movie about that kind of idea, I thought "Solar Crisis" was much better.

And it seems you got a couple names mixed up. It was directed by Danny Boyle and starred Rose Byrne.

@Knixon Sorry about that. That is what happens when one takes pain meds prior to posting. The major problem I had with Sunshine was how was Mark Strong able to survive for 7 years on the first ship? I have even watched the movie with the subtitles on to try to figure this out but it's a hopeless cause. But overall, I liked it.

Well that's part of it. But I don't believe the ship would have survived that long, which means nobody aboard could have either. I don't even need to get to food supply or whatever.

@Knixon I have to admit that as I said before that I liked it, but it did have plot holes so big that the Enterprise could of flown through it.

Solar Crisis had a lot fewer technical/plot holes, but might have been less "dramatic" in some ways. Problem is, so much of the "drama" in Sunshine struck me as just ridiculous, especially the sun-worship/sun-is-alive crap.

In that way I suppose it's a similar situation to Armageddon vs Deep Impact. Armageddon was more "dramatic" and "exciting" in some ways, but so much of that "drama" and "excitement" came from crap science and other nonsense. Such as having the shuttles dock with the ROTATING Russian station, etc. A) they really wouldn't be able to dock in the first place, with the station rotating, and B) if they did, as shown in the movie, "down" would be the outer walls of the shuttles, not their "floors." And that's just basic physics, not something like "how does warp drive work?"

@Knixon : Yes, the Deep Impact/Armageddon debate has been raging on for years. Personally, I liked Deep Impact more than Armageddon, mainly because Michael Bay directed the latter one.

BTW, I just wanted to tell you how much I've enjoyed talking with you today.

Yes, in general I also prefer Deep Impact. In terms of technical accuracy, anyway. But Armageddon is definitely more exciting. At least I think they both took out Paris so they both got that right.