My headcanon is red is Barclay's great grandmother and I hope to God she gets a bigger role.
Let's talk about the elephant in the room, this series violates Roddenberry's vision big time
- Thread starter Sci-fi fan
- Start date
My headcanon is red is Barclay's great grandmother and I hope to God she gets a bigger role.
And this is a bad thing? We want DSC to simply mimic the previous six TREK shows? As someone else noted earlier, this is not supposed to be the eighth season of TNG . . . .
That explains why Game of Throne is so unpopular. Oh wait.
I'm jesting. I see your point and this is going to be something that people disagree on. Do they like the more realistic characters in a darker setting? Some will like it and others won't. Par for the course.
Unlike Game of Thrones, the produces for Discovery have suggested that the war is here for only a season and they don't want the series to be consistently so dark.
No, it isn't bad and no I don't want it to mimic other Trek shows!
I guess I wasn't clear enough--but I like Discovery and your points are some of the reasons why I do! However, I can see how it can take time for some to adapt to it.
Last edited:
Eighth? With Voyager and Enterprise this would be the 22nd!
It's hard to judge the characters and their relationships based on a few eps.
True story: when I wrote my DS9 book years ago, all I had to work with was the script for the first episode, where Kirk tears Bashir a new one the first time they meet. Later, after the book came out, some readers complained that Kira was too mean to Bashir in the novel, but, honestly, that's all we saw in the first ep. It took time for the characters to develop the trust and rapport they later enjoyed. At first, Kira had a massive chip on her shoulder where Starfleet was concerned and Bashir was callow and immature. Should we have rejected the show because they were cranky and "unlikable"?
True story: when I wrote my DS9 book years ago, all I had to work with was the script for the first episode, where Kirk tears Bashir a new one the first time they meet. Later, after the book came out, some readers complained that Kira was too mean to Bashir in the novel, but, honestly, that's all we saw in the first ep. It took time for the characters to develop the trust and rapport they later enjoyed. At first, Kira had a massive chip on her shoulder where Starfleet was concerned and Bashir was callow and immature. Should we have rejected the show because they were cranky and "unlikable"?
They aren't even close to the "nasty" of the Mirror Universe.
No more dark and depressing than many first season TOS episodes and even a few Berman era ones.
I dunno man. I'm certainly too boring of a person to base a series on, but I'm pretty damn predictable. As are most people I know. You can tell who will be dependable and who will flake out on you, who you can trust and who you can't. People just don't go from being the models of responsibility to flipping out on their closest friends after seven years, not without something major like developing a drug problem. Yet Saru explicitly says that up until the mutiny, he trusted Burnham implicitly.
That actually gets me to another issue - that if Burnham was acting that out of character in the mutiny, she should have been found to have been "temporarily insane" by Starfleet and not have been court martialed (or at least not given a life sentence). Certainly if the "post-traumatic stress" hypothesis is a correct explanation for her actions, she was in real sense not in complete control of her faculties at the time of the mutiny.
Even if I agreed with you it can be a normal human trait to do a "heel turn" with no warning, it's really bad from a dramatic sense. Let's say, for example, that Star Trek decided they wanted to make Riker start being emotionally and physically abusive towards Troi. What would be better? To just drop it into one episode, or to slowly work up to it with little glances and comments over the course of a season? I think the answer is obviously the latter, because building tension up over a season is more entertaining than one moment of "WTF."
By 1960's standards it did. The dialog and performances on TOS were not that different than what you'd find on The Naked City or Bonanza
Ah, so I should just ignore you then. Done.
Speaking of dialogue:
"I'm a soldier, not a diplomat." -- James T. Kirk, "Errand of Mercy"
"That's the diplomat in you talking. What does the soldier say?"-- Michael Burnham, "The Vulcan Hello"
Given that "Errand of Mercy" was the very first Klingon episode, I like to think that was a deliberate echo. And further evidence that DSC is definitely taking some of its cues from classic TOS, which suggests that it's not all that far from Roddenberry's original "vision."
"I'm a soldier, not a diplomat." -- James T. Kirk, "Errand of Mercy"
"That's the diplomat in you talking. What does the soldier say?"-- Michael Burnham, "The Vulcan Hello"
Given that "Errand of Mercy" was the very first Klingon episode, I like to think that was a deliberate echo. And further evidence that DSC is definitely taking some of its cues from classic TOS, which suggests that it's not all that far from Roddenberry's original "vision."
I disagree, she did not offer to be his love instructor....(sorry, could not resist that one...
)
Fair enough. But one can argue that those new shows are DSC's "competition" these days, not older science fiction shows from earlier eras of television. STAR TREK does not exist in a bubble outside the rest of pop culture; it's needs to feel like a modern show made for modern viewers, not a nostalgia piece.
A modern-day prequel to VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA would probably diverge from Irwin Allen's original vision, just because times and tastes have changed since the 1960s.
I dunno. Looking at GoT, there are plenty of likable characters. Indeed, I'd say that there's only a few (like Cercei) who are entirely unlikable. Most occupy a gray zone of morality, but there have continued to be mostly "good" characters like Jon Snow across the entire series as well.
All I see in Discovery is a group of flawed people who are going to go through a lot of shit eventually growing into the 'Gene-vision' version of themselves. We are watching people earn a utopia that for so long was handed to us matter-of-factly. This is the version of Star Trek for the modern era where things are shitty and we have to be stronger together to get past it to something better. Star Trek is about hope for the future to me, and that's what I see right now in Discovery. Michael is on her hero's journey, and according to the hero template, she has to lose her mentor and faith in the cause before earning her victory.
This was more or less accomplished in ENT, this take place a century later
Yeah, my point is it may well be the case that Discovery is "doing modern television well" - in which case, I just don't like modern television.
I want more Trek episodes like:
TOS: The City on the Edge of Forever, Devil in The Dark
TNG: The Inner Light, Tapestry, Chain of Command, The First Duty, All Good Things
DS9: Duet, The Visitor, In The Pale Moonlight, It's Only A Paper Moon, Far Beyond the Stars
Those episodes all have sections that either bring me to tears or give me chills to this day. I hope this series can reach those heights.
