You're presenting an oversimplification in the hopes that it will make your case for you. It doesn't. It's not just names and dates--and you know it. The entire setting and context are consistent with the timeline.
Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 1x01 - "The Vulcan Hello"
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
You're presenting an oversimplification in the hopes that it will make your case for you. It doesn't. It's not just names and dates--and you know it. The entire setting and context are consistent with the timeline.
No, they really aren't. Sorry.
Since I didn't feel like typing out a long post detailing all the ways I don't agree with you, I opted for succinctness.
Showrunners don't know everything. FFS, the idiot who ran Doctor Who had this notion that the companion was the star of the show and the Doctor was merely her sidekick. That's why I walked away from that show over a season ago, and might not even bother coming back to check out the newest Doctor. Mess with things too many times, and some fans just leave and don't come back.
There's enough about this nu-nuTrek crap that makes me think this is nothing more than a bait-and-switch scheme to slap a Star Trek label and a few fannish items on a generically bad SF show and hail it as the "bestest Star Trek evar!".
Nope, they failed to convince me that it's a perfect fit with TOS, and they also failed to convince me to fork over $$$ for it.
Groovy. Quote me the series, episode, and lines where Spock mentions his father's ward, Michael Burnham (who is female - something that wouldn't have been done in the '60s, btw - giving a female character a male name, since this was before the time when interchangeable names were a common thing).
And how about the episode "Turnabout Intruder" in which Kirk explains to Janice Lester that there really have been lots of good women starship captains, but she just can't be one of them?
No?
This is a reboot.
The same one where Sybok is mentioned.
Or is STV a reboot too?
What about STIV with its female Captain?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Michele
Born 1966. How unrealistic.
Agreed. And don't forget that she was a black female captain.
It's all in the lighting.Man, she was really old in The Voyage Home!
We keep throwing around the word reboot. What is a reboot, in technical terms? It's when you restart something and most of the time it goes back to it's original state after the reboot. When used in Hollywood terms, it implies both restarting and a change, which only happens in a minority of the time in it's original context with computer systems. Generally when you reboot something you WANT it to go back to it's original state because that's why you rebooted it.
In other words, we can reduce the reboot discussion to the level of "I like it" or "I don't like it" because everyone is using the word with their own head definition. Is a can of Pepsi a coke or a soda? Depends on if you're from Texas or New York.
What's my point? Nothing, I just like wasting electrons.
Oh, and DIS is a reboot.
In other words, we can reduce the reboot discussion to the level of "I like it" or "I don't like it" because everyone is using the word with their own head definition. Is a can of Pepsi a coke or a soda? Depends on if you're from Texas or New York.
What's my point? Nothing, I just like wasting electrons.
Oh, and DIS is a reboot.
It wasn't my intention to debate the nuances of the funding of the series. I was just pointing that how "good" a show is often has nothing to do with whether or not it gets cancelled or renewed.
I felt that her PTSD, as it was previously shown, was a good motivation for her insubordination in front of the bridge crew. It was not a sufficient reason for her mutiny, especially considering the fact that she'd been the XO for seven years. If her PTSD was that profound, they needed to more clearly show her over-sensitivity to the issue. That's what I was talking about earlier with the suggestion that she should have attacked the Klingon first. It would have demonstrated that she couldn't think clearly where Klingons are concerned. There's a difference between leaving a character's motivations a mystery and having that motivation come out of left field. The mutiny felt like it came out of left field, especially after the Captain calmly explained her reasoning. I'm not saying the ingredients weren't there. They just weren't fully baked, if you know what I'm saying.
Nobody tell him about Star Trek: Friendship is Magic.
Like I said, if it makes you feel better, be my guest!
Awesome! I love when I get these because it means I win! You have absolutely nothing to back up your argument. So, you roll that out because you've got NOTHING to support your case!
Woot! Woot!
We've supported our case over and over, all we get from the other side is "the producers say so".
UM?
The captain of the Saratoga?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madge_Sinclair
It's possible that this was Silvia LaForge in The Voyage Home, if she was super-fricking well preserved in 2369, which is not unprecedented.
Yeah..."Against thoughtless boosterism, the gods themselves contend in vain."
I'm sorry guys. I had to vote 1 on this one.. This doesn't feel like Star Trek to me.. it feels like.... IDK actually.. But not Star Trek.. Trek themed maybe.. but not Actual Star Trek.. I know, just my opinion.. I may be in a minority..
But I like the Orville Better...
But I like the Orville Better...
Another simplification to try to make your point. No, we have given you much more than that. That's all you've chosen to focus on.
I have no problem if you choose to see it as a reboot. Knock yourself out. But, don't think you know something the rest of us don't. This is in the Prime timeline 10 years before see Kirk and Spock on the Enterprise.
Larry Nemecek says it very well:
I can respect not liking the series. I can respect not necessarily seeing that the show takes place in the Prime Timeline. If it makes you feel better calling it a reboot? Great! More power to you. But its as much as a reboot as
Star Trek -> Star Trek: The Motion Picture
Star Trek: The Motion Picture -> Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Star Trek (TOS Movies) -> Star Trek: The Next Generation
Star Trek: Nemesis -> Star Trek (2009)
There is a precedent for big changes being made in many different iterations of Trek. It does not bother me personally. There is a history of 51 years of Star Trek that at the end of Discovery's first season will have 753 adventures in both TV and movies. The franchise is bound to reinvent itself on occasion. That it holds itself together as well as it does is amazing (and let's not lie and suggest there are NO continuity errors, because there are tons). At the end of the day, if its a good story, and it makes sense in the overall framework of Star Trek, I'll be okay with that. I like what we've seen so far. I don't love it. There are issues that I hope they resolve in the storytelling aspects of the show. They've got me for at least the first month of episodes but they need to totally win me over. But being offended over the look of the Klingons and the fact that it looks like a future that's extrapolated from 2017 as opposed to 1964? That's your choice, I suppose. I think there are bigger things in the world to blow a gasket over.
I can respect not liking the series. I can respect not necessarily seeing that the show takes place in the Prime Timeline. If it makes you feel better calling it a reboot? Great! More power to you. But its as much as a reboot as
Star Trek -> Star Trek: The Motion Picture
Star Trek: The Motion Picture -> Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Star Trek (TOS Movies) -> Star Trek: The Next Generation
Star Trek: Nemesis -> Star Trek (2009)
There is a precedent for big changes being made in many different iterations of Trek. It does not bother me personally. There is a history of 51 years of Star Trek that at the end of Discovery's first season will have 753 adventures in both TV and movies. The franchise is bound to reinvent itself on occasion. That it holds itself together as well as it does is amazing (and let's not lie and suggest there are NO continuity errors, because there are tons). At the end of the day, if its a good story, and it makes sense in the overall framework of Star Trek, I'll be okay with that. I like what we've seen so far. I don't love it. There are issues that I hope they resolve in the storytelling aspects of the show. They've got me for at least the first month of episodes but they need to totally win me over. But being offended over the look of the Klingons and the fact that it looks like a future that's extrapolated from 2017 as opposed to 1964? That's your choice, I suppose. I think there are bigger things in the world to blow a gasket over.
Last edited:
Wow, you guys thrive on simplification. I've seen a lot of critical reviews in these threads--even from people who like it so far. I'm including myself in that. The first two episodes were far from perfect. Clunky in spots. The "mutiny" ill conceived. Etc But, I see lots of potential. We'll have to see how it goes. I never watch anything only because it's in a specific franchise. It has to be good or I'll drop it.
For me, it really isn't the look, though I would've went in a different direction. It is the fact that the world has changed. The writers have different life experiences, the way shows are made are different, the way actors work are different, our understanding of the universe is different, society is different.
What I watched last night "felt" nothing like the 2250's/60's as presented in the original.
It would be like making a modern prequel to Perry Mason. Sure you might be able to not conflict with later episodes on a purely information level. But seeing them walking around with technology no one could have imagined would shatter the illusion. Not only that but the changes in society that a modern show would reflect would also shatter the illusion.
Everyone's mileage will vary.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll