Star Trek’s “Strange New Worlds” Is Worthy!

Like Discovery, Star Trek’s Strange New Worlds is set slightly prior to the time of The Original Series, but for my money is a more emotionally cogent and relatable series than Discovery. Money is what I’m paying to see it, too, since it airs only on Paramount+.

Now Christopher Pike (Anson Mount) is helming the Enterprise in this series, and we do get to know Captain Pike quiet well, and he’s partway between Kirk and Picard, an older captain with his own charms. Number One (Rebecca Romijn) is also there as Pike’s first officer, and a younger Spock (Ethan Peck) is engaging and well-played as a science officer still learning the ropes of Starfleet.

Despair not…you’ll get to meet a younger James T. Kirk, also working his way up the ranks, quite engaging with an edge of being brash and cocky. You can believe this guy evolving to be William Shatner’s Kirk, so adept is Paul Wesley at conveying Kirk’s mannerisms and style…

Strange New Worlds also gives some previously minor characters an upgrade, and a chance to shine. Nurse Chapel (Jess Bush) is young, blonde, and hot, a versatile and dynamic character who would like to do more than just mind meld with Spock…

Uhura too (Celia Rose Gooding) is finally given given the more major role that her earlier character begged for but never fully achieved in the original series and films…

So catch Strange New Worlds if you possibly can. It has all of the right stuff to be a worthy addition to the Star Trek franchise, with better linkage to the characters, spirit, and content of the original series…

S Worlds if you can, a promising and solid-looking show with a better linkage to the characters and spirit of the original series than we’ve seen before..

Explore posts in the same categories: classics, fantasy, sci fi, technology, television

Tags: ,

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

25 Comments on “Star Trek’s “Strange New Worlds” Is Worthy!”

  1. carycomic's avatar carycomic Says:

    The only way I’ll ever be able to afford Paramount+ (or any other channel like it) is if it’s–quite literally–free. 😦

    Liked by 1 person

    • carycomic's avatar carycomic Says:

      P.S.—I’m dead serious. Any price above zero money down/zero money per month is just too high for the foreseeable future.

      Liked by 1 person

      • vulpesffb's avatar vulpesffb Says:

        I understand completely. I resisted Paramount+ for years out of anger that they had put the new Star Trek shows behind a pay wall. But in the end, my love for Star Trek won out…

        Liked by 1 person

    • vulpesffb's avatar vulpesffb Says:

      I wouldn’t go to see the “Barbie” movie even if they paid ME! 😺

      Liked by 1 person

      • carycomic's avatar carycomic Says:

        Which just goes to show: there’s a limit to where one will boldly go in the name of money.

        Liked by 1 person

        • carycomic's avatar carycomic Says:

          On a somewhat saltier note: Shark Week 2023 has officially begun. But, thus far, I cannot honestly say I’m too impressed with this year’s Opening Night specials. The only one I found even remotely interesting was “Belly of the Beast.” An experiment designed to tag South African great whites with satellite-traceable homing devices while inducing,observing, and videorecording feeding frenzy behavior from inside an animatronic whale decoy.

          Jason Mamoa’s hosting segments are kind of yawn-inducing, too. But, there are still six nights to go, so I’ll wait and see.

          Liked by 1 person

        • vulpesffb's avatar vulpesffb Says:

          Yes, there are some things that even I won’t do for money. Admittedly, very few! 😸

          Liked by 1 person

  2. carycomic's avatar carycomic Says:

    Makes you wish someone would do a horror film about plastic-eating mutant beavers.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. carycomic's avatar carycomic Says:

    Btw: last night’s Shark Week debut was pretty intriguing. An investigation into why two porbeagles (Atlantic sharks native to New England waters) disappeared after migrating southward into…The Bermuda Triangle.

    The only initial clues? Both were pregnant females almost ten feet long. And both of them had telemetry tags that stopped operating after a sudden–and literally vertical–descent from approximately 700 to over 2000 meters deep!

    One of the top three suspects (the circa 20 foot-long bluntnose sixgill shark) was eliminated through forensic dentistry.

    Like

    • carycomic's avatar carycomic Says:

      One would have to be on drugs to have enjoyed “Cocaine Sharks,” though. 😦

      Liked by 1 person

      • vulpesffb's avatar vulpesffb Says:

        They don’t care…they don’t have to…they’re COCAINE SHARKS! 🦈 🙀

        Liked by 1 person

        • carycomic's avatar carycomic Says:

          Allegedly! All the two marine biologists did was induce a narcotic-like high using finely ground fish meal wrapped up in the same type of square bales that cocaine smugglers would use for their contraband. Highly interesting? Yes. Conclusive proof? Not so much.

          Plus, this year’s crop of scuba-diving shark specialists seem to be putting their professional pride ahead of sensible safety. Staying in and under the water, amidst deliberately induced feeding frenzies, far longer than is practical.

          I really don’t see the popularity of Shark Week lasting till the 40th anniversary. 😦

          Liked by 1 person

  4. carycomic's avatar carycomic Says:

    Hey! Wouldn’t that make for a titillating movie poster? Barbie being chased by the aforementioned plastic-eating mutant beavers. And in blood-red capital letters, the title reading: “GNAWS!”

    Doo-Doot! Doo-Doot! Doot-doot-doot-doot-doot-doot-doot-doot! Doo-doot-DOOT!

    Liked by 1 person

  5. vulpesffb's avatar vulpesffb Says:

    Barbie is doomed if anything that eats plastic ever attacks her little world! Possibly the mutant beavers would be driven mad by over-exposure to pastel colors… 🙀

    Liked by 1 person


Leave a reply to carycomic Cancel reply