But enough about TOS
Let's talk about the elephant in the room, this series violates Roddenberry's vision big time
- Thread starter Sci-fi fan
- Start date
But enough about TOS
There's no such thing as an "established form used for Star Trek".
There might've been 30 years ago when TNG premiered, but the creation of DS9, VOY, and ENT broke from it and never went back.
For me it comes down to motivation and whether it is believable.
She wanted to save her ship and her captain, and she thought she knew how to prevent a war (although we know it wouldn't have worked). Those were her primary motivations and they overrode her sense of duty to Star Fleet. I can buy that flaw, but YMMV. I don't think it makes her unlikable, just human. She tried applying logic to her motivation by using Sarek's information about the Vulcan hello--but I take that more as rationalization than anything.
It'll be interesting to see if as her character grows and changes whether you'll like her more or not. I get the sense the Michael Burnham we see now is very different than the one at the end of the season. Just a guess.
This is a great point. I agree with it. But, if you think about it, it's entirely different than every other protagonist in the other ST series. At least as far as I can recall, you could always be certain about each character. Picard was always Picard. Kirk was always Kirk. Etc. I can't think of a truly unpredictable character with contradictory traits. Well Spock had contradictory traits with his warring human and Vulcan sides, but he was ultimately a very predictable character.
The exceptions are cases where they're influenced by aliens, spores, alien technology, etc. That's how previous series made our characters act out of character and be unpredictable.
Michael Burnham is contradictory and unpredictable, as you say, but not because of any outside influence--it is who she is at a fundamental level. She believes in SF's ideals but yet can't always be a team player. She thinks outside the box. Importantly, and realistically, she's not always right when she does that. That might take some getting used to!
Exactly. See my post above. Roddenberry originally wanted the characters to act like they were on a realistic "crime show." So it's funny to see DISCOVERY condemned for doing exactly that.
That may have been what he wanted originally, but that isn't what ended up on-screen.
People said the same thing about DS9 in its early days.
But this thread is about his vision, not what's on the screen. Because if we go with what's on the screen, we must accept that Discovery is here and is "True Trek."
Exactly because assassination is a method of career advancement, and the physical punishment, and they're going to obliterate entire peaceful societies, and ... oh wait.
I'll freely admit something: I don't watch much TV at all.
I'm 38 and I haven't owned a TV since I was 21. Since streaming has become a thing, I've been nostalgically rewatching TV from my childhood (including Trek). I've also been watching Game of Thrones and The Expanse because I was a fan of the novels. But I've never seen a single episode Lost, The Wire, The Walking Dead, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Girls, Orange Is The New Black, etc. I'm just not that interested in TV compared to books or gaming, and when I watch TV, it's basically just science fiction/fantasy. So you may well be right it compares well with modern TV, but it's just not something I'm particularly interested in.
I've never argued otherwise.
Big Brother Over The Top aired there last fall, the Big Brother Live Feeds live there during the summer, The Good Fight, a spin-off from the Good Wife, and they are launching three other new series, one of which launches in November as Discovery goes into its winter break.
Don't forget Georgiou, who was very likable and engaging. Actually, I thought the banter between the bridge crew in the pilot was wonderful before everything hit the fan.
I equate Gene Roddenberry to the likes of Stan Lee or George Lucas.
Stan Lee was a visionary, but without Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, and John Romita (among others) those visions would not be as well rounded or interesting, nor as memorable.
George Lucas had a great vision, but without the likes of Gary Kurtz, Luke would have been 65 year old man with a robot head, and Han Solo a weird frog man.
So Gene had a wonderful genesis of a concept, but given total control and no input from anyone else, Star Trek would have been a joke, and quickly forgotten. We need the other writers, and the likes of Nick Meyer, Mike Piller, Rick Berman, Ron Moore, and now Bryan Fuller and Kristen Berg, to make Trek something special.
Stan Lee was a visionary, but without Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, and John Romita (among others) those visions would not be as well rounded or interesting, nor as memorable.
George Lucas had a great vision, but without the likes of Gary Kurtz, Luke would have been 65 year old man with a robot head, and Han Solo a weird frog man.
So Gene had a wonderful genesis of a concept, but given total control and no input from anyone else, Star Trek would have been a joke, and quickly forgotten. We need the other writers, and the likes of Nick Meyer, Mike Piller, Rick Berman, Ron Moore, and now Bryan Fuller and Kristen Berg, to make Trek something special.
Well then I'm not sure what you're trying to say. The genesis of this discussion is that DSC is not consistent with classic Trek or the nebulous "Gene's vision"-- which if you accept what's on the screen, we must accept that this is creating a new consistency.
Even though it so totally is*
* Says a guy whose overall exposure to TOS consists of the Prime and Kelvin films and a handful of episodes
Pretty much every Trek has been a product of the era it was created, and followed TV trends of the day (DS9 may be the only real outlier).
Discovery is following that tradition.
Agreed, what I meant is, the point the OP was trying to make, that is.
I still say that, and those are the reasons I don't really like it.
Yes, I really liked that too, but that's not the show we're actually getting.
I know what you were trying to say; I was trying to point out, though, that the whole premise of this thread, and therefore the OP's point, is bunk.
I don't think it matters that much whether it violates any pre-determined vision or preconceptions. I have to say though, with the exception of Saru and Lorca, I found the characters pretty unlikable and uninteresting people as far as the setup goes. Yeah, I know it's only three episodes in and they will develop – and I do like it as a show and am intrigued to see more of the world the story is set in – but I can't pretend I've found most of the characters anything other than cold, angry, empathy-lacking and crotchety.
As viewers we picture ourselves in the place we are seeing and imagine how we'd feel. For me, that's 'frustrated and wanting to leave'.
As viewers we picture ourselves in the place we are seeing and imagine how we'd feel. For me, that's 'frustrated and wanting to leave'.
