Online Series: Star Trek: Discovery - Topic II

[Tawnos]

I think that it made a big difference that Berman and Piller started working under Roddenberry and during the golden age of Trek (which they no doubt greatly contributed to). They and those around them understood what Trek was about. The same can't be said for those who came after them (Fuller, Kurtzman and company).



I didn't misunderstand what you were saying. I was disagreeing with it because being the creators of one show doesn't put them in company to receive carte blanche to change the look and feel of Star Trek.

Ok, well there’s the agree-to-disagree moment. I think it DOES give them whatever latitude they want to tell their story... in the case of a franchise, that comes within the confines of whatever the people commissioning the show say it is. In this case, that would clearly be adhering to what CBS defines as canon and not what fans define as canon.

 

[Blender]

Ok, well there’s the agree-to-disagree moment. I think it DOES give them whatever latitude they want to tell their story... in the case of a franchise, that comes within the confines of whatever the people commissioning the show say it is. In this case, that would clearly be adhering to what CBS defines as canon and not what fans define as canon.

Sure they have the right to do it, but that doesn't mean they are above criticism for the decisions they make, especially decisions that go against established canon.

 

[Tawnos]

Sure they have the right to do it, but that doesn't mean they are above criticism for the decisions they make, especially decisions that go against established canon.

Established canon for this purpose is what CBS says it is. There’s no way they didn’t sit down and talk about this before hiring these people to make the show.

I basically take the viewpoint “you wanna do that? It’s fine with me, but it’s your job to deliver.” No problems with the decisions.

Moving on, my dad watched After Trek. Apparently according to Alex Kurtzman, the first place they started with this show was with the encounter with the Enterprise at the end. The entire season was a set up to that moment and whatever it means for next season.

I am not at all impressed by that.

 

[Ducks in a row]

Established canon for this purpose is what CBS says it is. There’s no way they didn’t sit down and talk about this before hiring these people to make the show.

I basically take the viewpoint “you wanna do that? It’s fine with me, but it’s your job to deliver.” No problems with the decisions.

Moving on, my dad watched After Trek. Apparently according to Alex Kurtzman, the first place they started with this show was with the encounter with the Enterprise at the end. The entire season was a set up to that moment and whatever it means for next season.

I am not at all impressed by that.

A line said in it was we owe the audience some answers to the question of why Spock never mentions his half sister before so uh obviously uh the Enterprise promises answers to that question.

 

[The Nemesis]

Established canon for this purpose is what CBS says it is. There’s no way they didn’t sit down and talk about this before hiring these people to make the show.

I basically take the viewpoint “you wanna do that? It’s fine with me, but it’s your job to deliver.” No problems with the decisions.

Moving on, my dad watched After Trek. Apparently according to Alex Kurtzman, the first place they started with this show was with the encounter with the Enterprise at the end. The entire season was a set up to that moment and whatever it means for next season.

I am not at all impressed by that.

Wow, that's dumb.

 

[johnjm22]

The creators behind modern Star Trek underestimate Berman/Piller era Trek. They think the only Trek anyone cares about is TOS and so they're constantly pandering to it.

If you're only familiar with Trek on a surface level, TOS looks silly and ridiculous (it often was). That's why modern Star Trek is so immature and lacks a sense of grounding; it's influenced by a corny 1960's TV show that Kurtzman, JJ and co. don't have a full grasp of. If you think Star Trek is just camp, then when you're creating more of it you don't feel restricted by trying to adhere to a sense of realism. You can be completely undisciplined with the writing. Lots of magic.

If you've seen the full scope of the franchise you understand that it can be more grounded and not cornball all the time. TNG added a lot to Star Trek, and the creators of modern Trek would be wise to consider taking some influence from it as opposed to just TOS. Not in a sense that TNG should be re-hashed, or referenced, but in a sense that Star Trek can also be more mature and can work really well as a slow burn.

TOS is the most memorable and iconic Trek because it was first, but TNG was the more watched show and most older millennial Star Trek fans got into the franchise because of it, not TOS. I don't think the people running Star Trek today realize that.

 

[Osprey]

Well said, johnjm22. I think that TOS, because it's a pop culture phenomenon, is considered relatively "mainstream" and accessible to a greater number of people, whereas TNG is more of a big deal with only sci-fi nerds. TNG fans are just a subset of Trek fans, so, unfortunately, in this era of pursuing the greatest accessibility and mass appeal, they repeatedly lean on and pander towards the larger fan base (the superset, rather than the subset). It also helps that TOS is "fun" sci-fi, TNG is "smart" sci-fi and fun will always beat out smart nowadays.

It's not surprising that Kurtzman, the writer behind the new Star Trek movies, helped conceive the Discovery meeting the Enterprise and worked backwards from there. That seems so predictable in hindsight.

TOS is the most memorable and iconic Trek because it was first, but TNG was the more watched show and most older millennial Star Trek fans got into the franchise because of it, not TOS. I don't think the people running Star Trek today realize that.

As a kid in the 80s, I was a pretty big fan of the movies, but, compared to what I became, I guess that you could've called me more of a casual Trek fan (much like the folks that the folks currently in charge are aiming at), since I wasn't really familiar with anything outside of the movies. I hadn't seen TOS and even missed the first few seasons of TNG. I didn't become a huge fan until I finally did catch an episode of TNG. I was hooked and it didn't take me long to discover and fall in love with TOS (which was all over TV at the same time), as well, but I wouldn't have become as big of a fan as I became if it were not for TNG. It's very disappointing to me that, as you say, the people in charge don't seem to realize the impact that TNG had and seem bent on doing nothing but milking the impact of TOS, instead.

 

[Jumptheshark]

an interesting idea came off one of the star trek fans sites

that Discovery maybe used to help undo the new time line from the reboot movies and take things back to how they were

 

[Blender]

an interesting idea came off one of the star trek fans sites

that Discovery maybe used to help undo the new time line from the reboot movies and take things back to how they were

Can they help undo the timeline from their own series while they are at it?

 

[Jumptheshark]

Can they help undo the timeline from their own series while they are at it?

Discovery is in the original time line==there is a theory that they will use it partly to undo what the movies have done

 

[Blender]

Discovery is in the original time line==there is a theory that they will use it partly to undo what the movies have done

I'm aware that they claim to be in the prime timeline.

 

[Osprey]

Can they help undo the timeline from their own series while they are at it?

I almost chirped something similar before you did. Maybe the Discovery can go back in time to prevent Burnham from being adopted by Sarek and save the Klingons from whatever horrible genetic experiments rubberized their skin and made all of their hair fall out.

 

[The Nemesis]

an interesting idea came off one of the star trek fans sites

that Discovery maybe used to help undo the new time line from the reboot movies and take things back to how they were

Won't work. The abrams-verse movies diverge from a point that' like 15-20 years before Discovery started. Plus they already take place in an alternate universe to almost everything else in trek canon (every tv series except Enterprise (which is common to both timelines because it's so early) and all... what were we at? 12 tos/tng movies? 13?) So any changes they make now will only serve to muck up the main timeline, besides the fact that this whole klingon/federation war may or may not have gone off the rails because of Discovery vanishing for 8 months, apparently.

If studio people or writers want to go back to the main trek universe for movies there's nothing stopping them.

 

[RobBrown4PM]

For the sake of the future of the franchise they need to go back to the regular and established timeline and canon.

Screw JJ's piss poor attempts and screw what ever this abomination is.

 

[Harbinger]

The only character I like is Saru. The rest are all quite bland and uninteresting.

 

[SolidSnakeUS]

The only character I like is Saru. The rest are all quite bland and uninteresting.

I generally enjoyed Stamets.

 

[SJSharksfan39]

I generally enjoyed Stamets.

Stamets and pre-mirror universe episodes Lorca were who I liked the most. Suru was someone I liked after his speech talking about Discovery being on the maiden voyage. Tilly was fun, but other than that, everyone else I can take or leave.

 

[SolidSnakeUS]

Stamets and pre-mirror universe episodes Lorca were who I liked the most. Suru was someone I liked after his speech talking about Discovery being on the maiden voyage. Tilly was fun, but other than that, everyone else I can take or leave.

Weirdly enough, I could do without the Ash Tyler being a Klingon subplot. I felt it was like... "okay?" I know they wanted to kill off characters to help keep tension up and make it seem like people aren't safe, but yeah, it was not that well done. I liked Michael as it went along, but she could better.

 

[Blender]

Stamets and pre-mirror universe episodes Lorca were who I liked the most. Suru was someone I liked after his speech talking about Discovery being on the maiden voyage. Tilly was fun, but other than that, everyone else I can take or leave.

How they wrapped up Lorca's story really enraged me.

 

[SJSharksfan39]

How they wrapped up Lorca's story really enraged me.

How they wrapped up the first season bothered me. Style over substance and the style was t all that interesting to begin with. Lorca was a great character who they made into a one demensional Villain. I felt cheated by that.

 

[tacogeoff]

Stamets, Lorca, Sarek and Tilly were probably my favorites of this season.

The inconsistency in quality of acting in regards to Burnham and Georgiou characters puts them a the bottom of the list for me.

Saru was ok. but he reminds me of Sheldon from BBT every time he speaks.

 

[Blender]

How they wrapped up the first season bothered me. Style over substance and the style was t all that interesting to begin with. Lorca was a great character who they made into a one demensional Villain. I felt cheated by that.

We were definitely cheated by it. There is just no way the character we were shown for most of the season suddenly became an incompetent moron.

 

[johnjm22]

Saru is the only character I liked. Moving forward they'll have to de-emphasize Burnham in order to make the show more compelling. She's about as interesting as Geordi La Forge, except that SMG is a worse actor. Tilly is the female Neelix.

Star Trek's tradition of contrasting a non-human character against fully human counterparts is a lot of what makes it fun. Seeing humans and their customs from the perspective of an alien or android is interesting. Star Trek Discovery doesn't have that element, but Saru could be that guy.

 

[Blender]

Saru is the only character I liked. Moving forward they'll have to de-emphasize Burnham in order to make the show more compelling. She's about as interesting as Geordi La Forge, except that SMG is a worse actor. Tilly is the female Neelix.

Star Trek's tradition of contrasting a non-human character against fully human counterparts is a lot of what makes it fun. Seeing humans and their customs from the perspective of an alien or android is interesting. Star Trek Discovery doesn't have that element, but Saru could be that guy.

The show is only one season in and it desperately needs a 7 of 9. I don't mean literally 7 of 9 or a character like her, just the same type of shake up she brought to Voyager. A new interesting and compelling character to take all the screen time from the dull characters.

 

[Osprey]

I didn't exactly "like" any of the characters, but Saru is definitely the only one that I didn't mind. Unlike most of the other actors, he was written and acted pretty well, and I can't help but imagine how good the show could've been if every character had been written and acted at least at his level (i.e. if he had been the relatively worst character, rather than the best). Lorca came close... until it was all thrown away at the end.

BTW, Blender, remember this exchange that we had after Episode 3?

Chances of Lorca going crazy like Sam Neil's character seem high.

That seems pretty likely, since Isaacs' best known role is as Lucius Malfoy. Hollywood can often be too predictable in its casting.

We were more right than we knew.