Where is your confidence level now with ST:Dis?

[mike2363]

I'm not that excited to be honest for ST, the biggest disappointment was that they've placed it in the past again. To me that's extremely lazy writing, this way they don't have to think of any new and dynamic stories, they'll just look through TOS and anchor them to events in that show. It also of course gives a limit to where they can take it just like ENT.

At least they've cast some very good actors - major issue they had with ENT was that all the actors were just useless. Why they cast Scott Bakula who was globally known (typecast) as Sam Beckett from Quantum Leap I don't know. At least in TNG, DS9 & VOY there were some very good stage actors involved.

Personally i'm hoping they go dark with it, even more so than DS9 which is the best series IMO. Be interesting to see how it pans out with it not concentrating on the Captain as the main character.

 

[Voth commando1]

I recall reading on the Reddit Daystrom Institute that basically the future of the franchise has already been layed down

Ent: Cold Front, Voy-Relativity, Future's End, other ENT episodes, maybe an episode of TNG not to mention the Beta Canon, Azati Prime and the like give a glimpse into the IU future of Trek-basically everything is okay, the federation defeats every major challenge, expands and has won morally over all challengers.

You either jettison that optimistic premise-with I dunno Omega particle explosions, federation civil war, and other things which would completely negate the optimistic premise of the franchise.

Prequels work to a point but eventually you have problems.

 

[queerTrekker]

I recall reading on the Reddit Daystrom Institute that basically the future of the franchise has already been layed down

Ent: Cold Front, Voy-Relativity, Future's End, other ENT episodes, maybe an episode of TNG not to mention the Beta Canon, Azati Prime and the like give a glimpse into the IU future of Trek-basically everything is okay, the federation defeats every major challenge, expands and has won morally over all challengers.

You either jettison that optimistic premise-with I dunno Omega particle explosions, federation civil war, and other things which would completely negate the optimistic premise of the franchise.

Prequels work to a point but eventually you have problems.

There's always those guys that monitor the integrity of the timeline. why not have somethign based in the 30th century or something methinks. it would be a great way to flush out hte history of the Star trek verse, and open up a whole slew of oppurtunities ot explore loads of time periods and civilizations. An episode centering around the time of Kahless for example, or when Vulcans were not thier present logical selves. It would be a grat oppurtunity to touch on the other shows to...sigh...so many opportunities.

 

[Voth commando1]

There's always those guys that monitor the integrity of the timeline. why not have somethign based in the 30th century or something methinks. it would be a great way to flush out hte history of the Star trek verse, and open up a whole slew of oppurtunities ot explore loads of time periods and civilizations. An episode centering around the time of Kahless for example, or when Vulcans were not thier present logical selves. It would be a grat oppurtunity to touch on the other shows to...sigh...so many opportunities.

I'm saying the utopia prevails, and that the federation will in the end.

I would be partial to a WW3 series with Vulcan observers and 30th century observers.

 

[queerTrekker]

I'm saying the utopia prevails, and that the federation will in the end.

I would be partial to a WW3 series with Vulcan observers and 30th century observers.

hrm, that would be interesting. Utopia could still prvail, but the past isn't the utopia yet, so...yeah, mabe a corps of time travelling observing historians.

 

[Mudd]

The idea that setting stories later in time rather than earlier encourages "dynamic storytelling," originality or avoids laziness is belied by the evidence.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

The idea that setting stories later in time rather than earlier encourages "dynamic storytelling," originality or avoids laziness is belied by the evidence.

Yep. Compelling stories and characters can exist in any time period. This idea that "the future" or "what happens next" (whatever that means to whoever is saying it) naturally lends itself to originality is, well, giving way too much credit to setting's magical narrative powers.

EDIT: Good stories are built on good characters and plot. Setting is not even third or fourth on my list of story priorities.

 

[Voth commando1]

Trek either needs to go into the past or far future.

 

[mike2363]

I'm not an ENT fan whatsoever but I do recall an episode when Archer was taken onto the Enterprise-H during the Temporal Cold Wars battle. That would be a great series leading up to that. And who wouldn't want to see this baby fly in battle.

Its also something that John Billingsley (Phlox) commented on that I agree with:

via Memory Alpha: "Actor John Billingsley recalled, "I definitely felt as if there was a dictate on high from the network level, or from the studio level, to end the temporal time war, wrap it up immediately. I tended to concur on the broader point that the temporal time war never really got off the ground, the storytelling was too attenuated, and that it needed to die. At the same time I think the network forced them to tie it all up so abruptly that the way in which they had to do it was not as deft as it needed to be."

 

[a thousand-yard stare]

Good stories are built on good characters and plot. Setting is not even third or fourth on my list of story priorities.

How many times has a lame story been picked up and carried by good cast with well-developed characters?
Sooner or later, in most shows, the writers fail, & the cast has to do the heavy lifting...

 

[Voth commando1]

I'm not an ENT fan whatsoever but I do recall an episode when Archer was taken onto the Enterprise-H during the Temporal Cold Wars battle. That would be a great series leading up to that. And who wouldn't want to see this baby fly in battle.

Its also something that John Billingsley (Phlox) commented on that I agree with:

via Memory Alpha: "Actor John Billingsley recalled, "I definitely felt as if there was a dictate on high from the network level, or from the studio level, to end the temporal time war, wrap it up immediately. I tended to concur on the broader point that the temporal time war never really got off the ground, the storytelling was too attenuated, and that it needed to die. At the same time I think the network forced them to tie it all up so abruptly that the way in which they had to do it was not as deft as it needed to be."

Enterprise J

 

[mike2363]

Enterprise J

My mistake

 

[Voth commando1]

Or is the franchise truly exhausted, has it said everything there is to say should it be allowed to die with dignity as Quinn did in Death Wish.

 

[mos6507]

This reminds of the trump warriors screaming against "SJWs" but they have it in reverse. This is the best time to have a proper Roddenberry-esque series. People like to watch what they do not have in real life.

I can't imagine a Trek series that would be Trek and appeal to Trump voters. I was horrified, for instance, that the V remake went into a right-wing anti-Obama conspiracy theory direction, for instance, considering it was a left-wing screed against fascism originally. Best not to try to appease the Trump demographic.

 

[TemporalFlux]

I still feel Discovery is a step backwards due to its time frame; Star Trek should be about going forward (especially if we're back in the prime universe on a tv model).

Of course, there is an argument it's a step forward from the last tv series Enterprise; but I didn't like the prequel approach then either.

 

[Noname Given]

I still feel Discovery is a step backwards due to its time frame; Star Trek should be about going forward (especially if we're back in the prime universe on a tv model).

Of course, there is an argument it's a step forward from the last tv series Enterprise; but I didn't like the prequel approach then either.

^^^
Please, no. I mean come on - the tech is at such a level they can almost hand wave problems away. IMO the ridiculous replicators that can replicate anything (unless the plot dictates otherwise) - and the perfect - always tolerant (until an alien mind control does something) - Federation is always 'right' 24th century has 21 TV seasons and 4 TNG films dedicated to it, it's been done to death; and I don't need to see even more 'perfect/non-confrontational' humans talking aboutr what particle the main deflector needs to generate to fix the Universe.

Give me something closer to the ORIGINAL Star Trek - that actually had better (but not perfect) humans, better (but not Godlike) technology, in an era that hasn't really been explored to the degree as the 24th century anyday.

 

[Mudd]

Yep. If they never go past the 23rd century again that'll be fine.

 

[fireproof78]

I can't imagine a Trek series that would be Trek and appeal to Trump voters. I was horrified, for instance, that the V remake went into a right-wing anti-Obama conspiracy theory direction, for instance, considering it was a left-wing screed against fascism originally. Best not to try to appease the Trump demographic.

It depends on the presentation and the characters. For me, enjoyment comes from that, not personal politics. I didn't agree 100% with all the GR, or George Lucas or Robert Heinlein, or a hundred other authors on their politics or the politics in their stories. I enjoyed them for characters.

Star Trek is no different, and shouldn't be written with the idea of including or excluding a specific politic demographic.

 

[Jonesy]

My confidence level was really rather high when this was originally announced, because they were bringing in Brian Fuller and Nicholas Meyer, plus some other familiar names like Joe Menoksey. There was also rumblings that Tony Todd was going to play a part in this (that seems to have vanished though). In general this sounded like a great recipe of sorts for success.

However, Brian left under kind of murky circumstances, and I recall reading the suggestion that he wasn't going to be given the creative control that he desired (I don't know how confirmed or unconfirmed this is though). And then this show was pushed back and back, and there is of course the fact that I will have to pay $5.99 a month to see this series. The cast they chose are largely unknowns or obscure actors, which can go two ways.

Whether I end up paying $5.99 a month to see this will depend on how I feel regarding the pilot episode, and what that pilot sets up in terms of story and acting. I still feel slightly let down when I think about how bad Enterprise was carried out by TPTB. However, there's always the possibility that a fantastic premise has been set up, and that a really great story will play out.

 

[mos6507]

It sounds to me like the desire to assemble a dream-team may have created a too-many-cooks situation. With Bryan Fuller gone I think someone with a firm hand should really take over. It doesn't sound like Alex Kurtzman is really being hands-on enough, nor would I want him to be considering his track-record. I would just put Nick Meyer in charge and tell him to get sh*t done because he knows how to do that and it would fire up the fanbase. I don't think they will, of course.