Don't contradict my head canon, bro.
DSC and the "No Conflict" Rule
- Thread starter Balok's Decoy
- Start date
If that were the case, then Star Trek would not have had its debut on NBC, it would have aired on CBS. CBS became part of the Viacom family in 2000, but it was not until Viacom spit up that what was at the time called Paramount Domestic Television was merged with CBS.
Stick to the topic instead of complaining about and insulting people.
As are 90% of the stories out there the past few months. I really find the best way to get real info is watching the cast and crews social media......
Yeah - hell, he's not even a Journalist - he's a freelance artist: https://uk.linkedin.com/in/matthew-loffhagen-43608278Outlandish remark?? seriously?? have you not been reading about all the issues with this series??
I am referring to their production problems.
Here is a quote from an article about it 6 days ago, so I am hardly off base with my "outlandish" comment..
"Of course, there's a big problem with a spiraling production time and cost. CBS executives have expressed reluctance about the project in general, likely due to the large expense involved in making the show, so if Discovery doesn't find an audience immediately, there's a chance the network will kill the series."
http://www.outerplaces.com/science-fiction/item/16240-star-trek-discovery-delays-props-design
So I am not the only one who thinks that CBS is being a Jerk about this series.. there are more articles going back to January that say the same, do I need to post links to them also, or will this one source suffice??
If you haven't been keeping up on that, how about the last 50 years of CBS having issues with Star Trek all the way from the TOs era to Enterprise...
"outlandish remark" pfft!
Yeah, I'm sure he really has the 'scoop' on a big budget Hollywood television production for a tentpole IP. He's just another would be Bloggefr with an opinion which in the end is no better than yours or mine.
Dear Gods. Whats his source? Tumblr?!
What is currently CBS was Paramont in the 1960s. Through various mergers, acquisitions and rebrandings it wound up with the CBS name when Viacom split.
Thanks. Won't click.
Correct. But what you originally wrote states something different.
CBS had zero involvement at the time. That is like saying a 1930 Rolls Royce is damm fine BMW, just because BMW ended up owning the company.
What I wrote was "CBS" rather than CBS. The quote marks serve a purpose.
I like the idea of people not being in conflict, but it did make early TNG a little stale at times. I think conflict is fine, as long as it is not petty, and as long as they look to resolving it is a logical, productive and respectful manor. I think from what they said about how people solve problems being taken from Roddenberry means this will be what they do. I certainly hope so. I don't want them all screaming at each other. But real debate and disagreement? Yes. We have a lot of that in the world right now and good Star Trek (and Sci Fi) addresses the issues we deal with. Right now however we seem to have little logical and cool headed attempts to resolve things. Hopefully DSC will point us in the right direction!
This is pretty much how I feel - I want the characters to be able to represent different sides of an issue and argue their points. More than Worf and Tasha wanting to kill everything in TNG season 1 but not just petty disagreements. One of the best examples perhaps is the refusal by Worf to give a transfusion to a Romulan in The Enemy. It creates a genuine conflict among the characters and creates real disagreement on a plot relevant issue, and it isn't just overridden by a Picard Speech. In contrast the petty squabbling between Riker and Shelby, or Riker and Jellico (noticing a theme?) didn't do anything for me and as realistic as it is to have humans act like that, I'm very ok with minimising it.
Actually, that always bothered me because as that story progresses, the whole thing becomes a non-issue. Worf does talk to the Romulan, who says he doesn't want Klingon blood "polluting his veins." At this point, Worf is off the hook, but we still have Crusher nagging him for the rest of the episode, plus his heart to heart with Picard to reconsider, despite the fact that at this point the Romulan is refusing the operation, meaning Crusher can't ethically give him the transfusion even if Worf did suddenly decide to consent.
My main issue with a lot of TNG was that the Federation became hypocritical. In TOS Kirk has a line when talking about the differences between the Federation and the Klingon Empire in TOS - "Friday's Child". In speaking the the leader of the Capellan Tribes Kirk states: "Your world is yours, and will remain yours.." and I always took that to mean: "The Federation will not tell you how to run your world, govern your people or tell you your culture is 'wrong'.
There were many examples too, of member worlds whose cultures WERE very different from Earth - and yet they were full Fedration member worlds. There was the people of the cloud city Stratos (TOS - "The Cloud Minders"). They used torture and had the death penalty, and whie Kirk and Co. didn't like that - again they conceded it was their world; and the ONLY reason Kirk interfered was to make sure they kept their obligation to another member world in crisis.
Contrast that with how TNG treats Worf and Klingon culture EVERYTIME he does something that's not Federation politicaly correct. The one I really recall (and really felt Picard was a ^%$#! hypocrite for - was when he dressed down Worf for following Klingon tradition in challenging and killing Duras for mursdering the mother of Worf's son - Ambassador Kehleyr. Hell, even the somewhat cowardly Duras AGREED TO THE DUEL because it WAS a valid claim under Klingon law and culture.
But yeah, as soon as Worf returns - he gets dressed down and lectured by Picard:
PICARD: Mister Worf, your service aboard the Enterprise has been exemplary. Until now.
^^^
(Of course this wasn't the first time Picard dressed down Worf for following Klingon heritage, but hey Picard's old.
)WORF: Sir, I have acted within the boundaries of Klingon law and tradition.
PICARD: The High Council would seem to agree. They consider the matter closed. I don't. Mister Worf, the Enterprise crew currently includes representatives from thirteen planets. They each have their individual beliefs and values and I respect them all. But they have all chosen to serve Star Fleet. If anyone cannot perform his or her duty because of the demands of their society, they should resign. Do you wish to resign?
^^^
(Yep - in the TNG era if your culture doesn't conform to the human culture of the Federation and you're not willing to subvert your personal beliefs, you can't be in Star Fleet? WTF?)
WORF: No, sir.
PICARD: I had hoped you would not throw away a promising career. I understand your loss, We all admired K'Ehleyr. A reprimand will appear on your record...
^^^
(For what? Following Klingon law and Klingon cultural norms? <--- How enlightened/tolorant and 'non-interfereing the Federation is in the 24th century)
Picard (continued): Dismissed. Mister Worf, isn't it time for the truth about your father's innocence to be told? After all, you only accepted this dishonor to protect the name of Duras and hold the Empire together. Now that he has died in disgrace, what is gained by further silence?
WORF: Each member of the Klingon High Council has shared in that lie. They will not be so willing to admit their own dishonor. But the day will come when my brother and I will convince them to speak the truth.
^^^^
This was another issue I had with GR's retcon of the Federation for the 24th century. They went from being tolerant of any world's culture to - hey, the Human cultural norms of the Federation are the best and if you're an existing member world (or now want to join) you MUST conform...you will be assimilated...oh. wait....
Last edited:
I think the point is that the difference between Lokai and Bele was so minor and superficial that Our Heroes didn't even notice that there was a difference between them.
I personally think -- because of its simplicity -- this was a significant enough plot point on its own, and it didn't require any heavier-handed treatise on the specifics of racism.
Last edited:
My main issue with a lot of TNG was that the Federation became hypocritical. In TOS Kirk has a line when talking about the differences between the Federation and the Klingon Empire in TOS - "Friday's Child". In speaking the the leader of the Capellan Tribes Kirk states: "Your world is yours, and will remain yours.." and I always took that to mean: "The Federation will not tell you how to run your world, govern your people or tell you your culture is 'wrong'.
There were many examples too, of member worlds whose cultures WERE very different from Earth - and yet they were full Fedration member worlds. There was the people of the cloud city Stratos (TOS - "The Cloud Minders"). They used torture and had the death penalty, and whie Kirk and Co. didn't like that - again they conceded it was their world; and the ONLY reason Kirk interfered was to make sure they kept their obligation to another member world in crisis.
Contrast that with how TNG treats Worf and Klingon culture EVERYTIME he does something that's not Federation politicaly correct. The one I really recall (and really felt Picard was a ^%$#! hypocrite for - was when he dressed down Worf for following Klingon tradition in challenging and killing Duras for mursdering the mother of Worf's son - Ambassador Kehleyr. Hell, even the somewhat cowardly Duras AGREED TO THE DUEL because it WAS a valid claim under Klingon law and culture.
But yeah, as soon as Worf returns - he gets dressed down and lectured by Picard:
PICARD: Mister Worf, your service aboard the Enterprise has been exemplary. Until now.
^^^
(Of course this wasn't the first time Picard dressed down Worf for following Klingon heritage, but hey Picard's old.
WORF: Sir, I have acted within the boundaries of Klingon law and tradition.
PICARD: The High Council would seem to agree. They consider the matter closed. I don't. Mister Worf, the Enterprise crew currently includes representatives from thirteen planets. They each have their individual beliefs and values and I respect them all. But they have all chosen to serve Star Fleet. If anyone cannot perform his or her duty because of the demands of their society, they should resign. Do you wish to resign?
^^^
(Yep - in the TNG era if your culture doesn't conform to the human culture of the Federation and you're not willing to subvert your personal beliefs, you can't be in Star Fleet? WTF?)
WORF: No, sir.
PICARD: I had hoped you would not throw away a promising career. I understand your loss, We all admired K'Ehleyr. A reprimand will appear on your record...
^^^
(For what? Following Klingon law and Klingon cultural norms? <--- How enlightened/tolorant and 'non-interfereing the Federation is in the 24th century)
Picard (continued): Dismissed. Mister Worf, isn't it time for the truth about your father's innocence to be told? After all, you only accepted this dishonor to protect the name of Duras and hold the Empire together. Now that he has died in disgrace, what is gained by further silence?
WORF: Each member of the Klingon High Council has shared in that lie. They will not be so willing to admit their own dishonor. But the day will come when my brother and I will convince them to speak the truth.
^^^^
This was another issue I had with GR's retcon of the Federation for the 24th century. They went from being tolerant of any world's culture to - hey, the Human cultural norms of the Federation are the best and if you're an existing member world (or now want to join) you MUST conform...you will be assimilated...oh. wait....
Picard is a well known hypocrite. All someone has to do to understand it is to look at what he says about Starfleet not being military. Right before or after he threatens a subordinate officer with court-martial.
My main issue with a lot of TNG was that the Federation became hypocritical. In TOS Kirk has a line when talking about the differences between the Federation and the Klingon Empire in TOS - "Friday's Child". In speaking the the leader of the Capellan Tribes Kirk states: "Your world is yours, and will remain yours.." and I always took that to mean: "The Federation will not tell you how to run your world, govern your people or tell you your culture is 'wrong'.
There were many examples too, of member worlds whose cultures WERE very different from Earth - and yet they were full Fedration member worlds. There was the people of the cloud city Stratos (TOS - "The Cloud Minders"). They used torture and had the death penalty, and whie Kirk and Co. didn't like that - again they conceded it was their world; and the ONLY reason Kirk interfered was to make sure they kept their obligation to another member world in crisis.
Contrast that with how TNG treats Worf and Klingon culture EVERYTIME he does something that's not Federation politicaly correct. The one I really recall (and really felt Picard was a ^%$#! hypocrite for - was when he dressed down Worf for following Klingon tradition in challenging and killing Duras for mursdering the mother of Worf's son - Ambassador Kehleyr. Hell, even the somewhat cowardly Duras AGREED TO THE DUEL because it WAS a valid claim under Klingon law and culture.
But yeah, as soon as Worf returns - he gets dressed down and lectured by Picard:
PICARD: Mister Worf, your service aboard the Enterprise has been exemplary. Until now.
^^^
(Of course this wasn't the first time Picard dressed down Worf for following Klingon heritage, but hey Picard's old.
WORF: Sir, I have acted within the boundaries of Klingon law and tradition.
PICARD: The High Council would seem to agree. They consider the matter closed. I don't. Mister Worf, the Enterprise crew currently includes representatives from thirteen planets. They each have their individual beliefs and values and I respect them all. But they have all chosen to serve Star Fleet. If anyone cannot perform his or her duty because of the demands of their society, they should resign. Do you wish to resign?
^^^
(Yep - in the TNG era if your culture doesn't conform to the human culture of the Federation and you're not willing to subvert your personal beliefs, you can't be in Star Fleet? WTF?)
WORF: No, sir.
PICARD: I had hoped you would not throw away a promising career. I understand your loss, We all admired K'Ehleyr. A reprimand will appear on your record...
^^^
(For what? Following Klingon law and Klingon cultural norms? <--- How enlightened/tolorant and 'non-interfereing the Federation is in the 24th century)
Picard (continued): Dismissed. Mister Worf, isn't it time for the truth about your father's innocence to be told? After all, you only accepted this dishonor to protect the name of Duras and hold the Empire together. Now that he has died in disgrace, what is gained by further silence?
WORF: Each member of the Klingon High Council has shared in that lie. They will not be so willing to admit their own dishonor. But the day will come when my brother and I will convince them to speak the truth.
^^^^
This was another issue I had with GR's retcon of the Federation for the 24th century. They went from being tolerant of any world's culture to - hey, the Human cultural norms of the Federation are the best and if you're an existing member world (or now want to join) you MUST conform...you will be assimilated...oh. wait....
I kind of get what you are saying, but I think there is a difference between being a Federation member and serving in Starfleet. Federation membership is quite broad I imagine, but to be a serving member of Starfleet, a relatively small organisation, you have to obey more stringent rules. This would apply today to any organisation. You obey your contries laws, but your organisation will have further rules you will be expected to follow.
But again - in what way would what Worf did BREAK any Starfleet rules? It was a matter of personal honor - something recognized as 100% legal by his racial home world. As Picard stated, the Klingon Empire government had no issue with how the duel was conducted. The only person really upset here WAS PICARD.
[Oh, and it not like Star Fleet took as narrow a view because I remember Picard getting dressed down by an Admiral for the action he took in TNG - "I Borg". From TNG - "Descent":
NECHAYEV: Captain, I've read the report that you submitted to Admiral Brooks last year regarding the Borg you called Hugh, and I've been trying to figure out why you let him go.
PICARD: I thought that I had made that clear.
NECHAYEV: As I understand, it you found a single Borg at a crash site, brought it aboard the Enterprise, studied it, analysed it, and eventually found a way to send it back to the Borg with a programme that would have destroyed the entire collective once and for all. But instead, you nursed the Borg back to health, treated it like a guest, gave it a name, and then sent it home. Why?
PICARD: When Hugh was separated from the Borg collective he began to grow and to evolve into something other than an
automaton. He became a person. When that happened, I felt I had no choice but to respect his rights as an individual.
NECHAYEV: Of course you had a choice. You could've taken the opportunity to rid the Federation of a mortal enemy, one that has killed tens of thousands of innocent people, and which may kill even more.
PICARD: No one is more aware of the danger than I am. But I am also bound by my oath and my conscience to uphold certain principles. And I will not sacrifice them in order to ...
NECHAYEV: Your priority is to safeguard the lives of Federation citizens, not to wrestle with your conscience. Now I want to make it clear that if you have a similar opportunity in the future, an opportunity to destroy the Borg, you are under orders to take advantage of it. Is that understood?
PICARD: Yes, sir.
I think there's also an excellent source of drama from situations where two (or more) characters who are normally allies have completely different interpretations of how to react to a situation, and to some extent they're both right (and potentially both wrong). If it's handled correctly. The movie Crimson Tide springs to mind, and Sisko's actions in "In The Pale Moonlight" as another. He does stuff he would normally never do, out of desperation to turn the Dominion War around, and the writing is strong enough that we get some great performances from pretty much all of the cast. It's perhaps one of Trek's darkest episodes, but also one of its best.
Yeah I am all for conflicts, as long as it doesn't come at the expense of equally strong, positive relationships between crewmembers.
But I love the idea of using Discovery as a model of civil discourse between opposing ideologies. Nothing could be more relevant or important in this age. If every episode has an extended roundtable discussion with everyone's opposing opinions analysed and rationally discussed and respected, I will love this show no matter what else they do.
But I love the idea of using Discovery as a model of civil discourse between opposing ideologies. Nothing could be more relevant or important in this age. If every episode has an extended roundtable discussion with everyone's opposing opinions analysed and rationally discussed and respected, I will love this show no matter what else they do.
