I am glad they had a change of heart.
Haters of Star Trek: Discovery - wtf?
- Thread starter SpaceLama
- Start date
What, did he die?That's what they hired major Hayes for.
To be fair to B&B, trying to get a clear useful message from the noise generated by fans is not an easy task. For every fan making a reasoned case for one thing, there's another reasoned case against, and that's not even taking into account all the crazy rants and bizarre fixations that keep crying for attention.
The end result is that, despite fan feedback, they were basically working in a bubble. Trying to Frankenstein the dawning arc-story approach with the traditional pull-it-out-of-your-ass method Trek had used up to then, and working with a team that had been making this product for nigh on 20 years.
(IMO the pon-farr ep, while perhaps somewhat exploitative in origin, did develop Vulcans further and had a strong performance by Blalock.)
I wasn't expecting much of Blalock given the reason she had been hired for, so I was pleasantly surprised by her performance in some episodes.
Exactly!!! ENT didn't fail because it was a prequel, it failed because it wasn't a prequel! Berman wanted (and got) a TNG remake. They even used exactly the same technology. They just substituted the terminology! Phase pistols and phase cannons instead of phaser pistols and phaser banks. Spatial and photonic torpedoes instead of photon and quantum torpedoes. Polarized hull plating instead of deflector shields. Warp reactor instead of warp core. Shuttlepods instead of shuttlecraft. Food synthesizers instead of replicators. Tactical alert instead of red alert, etc. I hope DSC isn't a missed opportunity at a TOS prequel show like ENT was. The fact that we have an "ugly" starship instead of a "sexy" and "cool" ship like Berman's Akira makes me even more hopeful than before!
What, did he die?
They were not nice to Hayes, I tells ya!
Though, after what went down in Azati Prime/Damage I still think half the crew should have been dead, anyway. Kill Travis and a couple pre-setup minor background characters.
Oh absolutely.
And of course, some of the stories Braga has recounted about Network meddling to offer some light on the kind of a cluster-calamity it was behind the scenes. Though, that still doesn't excuse some of the really awful writing at play.
I mean this sincerely; Are we talking about the same episode? T'pol and Phlox stuck in the decon chamber, where T'pol won't stop saying to the effect of "I'm horny. Do me, you gill-spined stud muffin!" The one that almost borders on a porn parody setup?
Setting all of that aside... My issue there is it again shows they didn't bother to watch any of the prior Trek to at least get a feel for the era, or their characters background. Amok Time in particular, which is not exactly an obscure episode of TOS. Vulcan chicks ain't supposed to go through Pon-Farr. It's both implied in Amok Time via depiction, and straightout stated in Star Trek III. It afflicts the men. This was a running issue with B&B. They didn't seem to get Vulcans at all. I still remember the episode where everybody is going on their shore leave to Risa and Reed says of Vulcans "they say they only do it every seven years." or something to that effect. ...Uh, no. They don't say that. They don't say anything. Go watch Amok Time! This stuff is super private secret stuff that they don't talk about because it embarrasses them to have their logic stripped away. It's supposed to be a big cultural taboo to let 'off worlders' know about pon-farr.
Which then leads to reveal another opportunity missed. Vulcan relationships from the female of the species perspective? They actually kinda-sorta did something with this when T'pol and Tucker went to Vulcan. Now, imagine if you combined those two story ideas. Let's say T'pol was feeling something for Trip, and she acted on it...(You know, make that scene where she "experimented" with Trip actually mean something.) Then they go to Vulcan to meet her "joined partner" or whatever you want to call it... But because she had a mental, and physical link, with Trip. It screws up the link between her and her Vulcan partner, and that raises all kinds of shenanigans to follow. All of this, without needing to make T'pol horny for exploitative reasons. Which is what they did, all credit to Jolene for whatever she ever salvaged out of the material she was given, but she was there because of her body... and it's sad just how transparently and immaturely that was handled more often than not.
They needed Travis to be the token black guy. Note that we rarely saw him throughout the series, so token indeed.
Actually, Berman wanted to do a prequel, it was UPN who forced him to do a TNG remake. The initial outline of Enterprise was meant to be very prequel oriented, the first season was to have been set mostly on Earth or in the Sol system and focused on drama related to the development and building of NX-01. And when the ship did get launched, there were plans in place for there to be no transporter. UPN had no faith in the concept, saying that it had to be about a ship beaming people up and down or else it "wasn't Star Trek." They also forced the Temporal Cold War into the show feeling there had to be some link to the future. Likewise, it was UPN that wanted the NX-01 to be an Akira class ship. Literally, they pulled out a picture of the Akira and said "we want this as the ship in the new show." Berman had to pull teeth just to get them to agree to the "retro modifications" like changing the nacelles.
And I don't get some of your complaints regarding the "substituted technology." Warp reactor and food synthesizers are terms that originate from TOS, and shuttlepod is a term that was used on TNG. So why is it a crime that Enterprise used these terms?
When TNG debuted, there wasn't a ton of other SF and fantasy shows to watch, there were a lot fewer channels, and it was the first new Trek show in umpteen years, so of course we watched it even if that first season was a bit rocky. Come the 21st century and ENTERPRISE is competing not just with the memory of four previous Trek shows, but with BUFFY, THE X-FILES, XENA, FARSCAPE, ANDROMEDA, the new BATTLESTAR GALACTICA, EARTH: FINAL CONFLICT, etc.
And nowadays there are even more channels and services running original programming, so the competition is even more intense. As Trekkies, we got used to the idea that every STAR TREK show was "owed" seven seasons at least, but most sci-fi shows would be happy to make four. If people aren't hooked on a new show, they'll watch ORPHAN BLACK or DARK MATTER or LEGENDS OF TOMORROW or DOCTOR WHO or JESSICA JONES or . . . .
Heck, there's something like three new time-travel series debuting this fall. (FREQUENCY, TIMELESS, and TIME AFTER TIME, to be exact.) Somehow I doubt that modern audiences are going to give any of those shows three seasons to get their acts together . ...
Last edited:
I'm not sure how Amok Time implies anything about female pon farr. Depending on how you interpret Spock's line from Cloud Minders, it can go either way. Since I interpret it literally, I say it's possible for women to get ponn far. Here's what I went over in another thread.
http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/whats-in-your-head-canon.282445/page-8#post-11688142
Remember Fusion? Kov said something about Vulcans being driven to mate every 7 years with Trip and Reed in the same room. He isn't your average Vulcan. Also keep in mind that Kov never uses the word pon farr or goes into detail about the loss of logic, etc. Of course, Reed conflated Kov with "they" (which is what happens with every stereotype). And some things got lost in translation (I doubt they actually mate every 7 years).
I don't remember much about Bounty but it wouldn't be that hard to give T'Pol pon farr without it being exploitive. Especially if they used that as the catalyst in Harbinger instead of Amanda Cole (the most contrived plot device ever!).
Last edited:
I'd agree with that if this was like, 2014. But since then we've had Dark Matter, Killjoys and the Expanse; space opera's at least extant on TV now, which prior to that it hadn't been since, like, Caprica.
(Also had space opera adjacent shows like Defiance, but that's neither here nor there.)
Hell, look at the Last Ship.
It's on TNT, same channel as Crusade.
It's about a ship searching for the cure to a global epidemic, like Crusade.
The difference is it's a ship at sea, not in space.
That show's had three seasons and been renewed for a fourth. I can't pretend to fathom the appeal; I could barely get through two seasons before calling it quits, but clearly, somebody out there likes this program, and it's enough to justify the renewals.
100 votes in.
92 don't dislike.
8 do dislike.
In other words 92% and 8% of the fanbase.
92 don't dislike.
8 do dislike.
In other words 92% and 8% of the fanbase.
The Last Ship is all kinds of awesome.
92 and 8 of the people who bothered replying from this one site. Hardly the entire fanbase.
Oh god, I thought that went without saying.
Well, CRUSADE was seventeen years ago, so you're probably talking different management, a different generation of viewers, different demographics, etc. Plus, THE LAST SHIP presumably attracts viewers who prefer more "realistic" shows to space operas. But who knows? Maybe CRUSADE would do better on TNT today than when it aired way back in 1999 . ...
My main point being that we can't really apply 1980s or 1990s expectations to a whole new media landscape. ("But it worked in 1987 . . .") Times change, and there's a reason that STAR TREK was launched on network TV back in 1966 and not as a radio drama.
But, yeah, you're right about space opera making a bit of a comeback in recent years. One can also include the various STAR WARS animated series. Plus, there was that recent Syfy mini-series about the generation ship, whose name escapes me at the moment . . ..
It might have worked better not using the word fanbase.
Everyone knows how stats, and sample sizes work. We read polls in the BBC every day saying 58% of the public believe blah blah. We know that means 58% of respondents, and what that entails (or at least bloody well should). It was a throwaway comment. Let's leave it now, please.
Okay, so genre shows compete with other shows in their genre, not as much with other TV shows?
Okay.[/QUOTE]
To a degree. I mean, I doubt if there are very many viewers who only watch genre shows--Lord knows I don't--but if you're trying to attract sci-fi fans, it's probably easier if you don't have umpteen other shows going after the same audience. And it also helps to stand out from all the other kinds of shows on TV.
Back in 1987, TNG stood out from all the cop shows and lawyer shows and medical dramas and sitcoms by being one of few high-profile sci-fi shows on the air. That's no longer the case.
Did I mention the three new time-travel shows debuting this Fall? And that's not even counting returning shows like THE MAGICIANS, TWELVE MONKEYS, GRIMM, SLEEPY HOLLOW, ONCE UPON A TIME, AGENTS OF SHIELD, GOTHAM, TEEN WOLF, VIKINGS, and (ahem) THE LIBRARIANS.
Similar threads
- Poll
