Discovery Renewed for Season 2
- Thread starter Krandor
- Start date
I'm fairly sure that Babylon Five was lifted by SOMEONE to create Deep Space Nine as there's ample evidence it was a concept in the hands of people who made the latter after submission by JMS.
This, by contrast, seems more like the kid who insisted they ripped him off to make the animated Tribbles sequel.
This, by contrast, seems more like the kid who insisted they ripped him off to make the animated Tribbles sequel.
C
Captain pl1ngpl0ng
Guest
Hahahaha...
Its such a crazy claim, totaly redicalous :-D just... Wow!
HAHAHAHA!!
AAAHAHAH!
Absolutely. I'm reminded of 'Dr. Strangelove' aka 'Red Alert' & 'Fail-Safe' or more specifically the novels they were based on as the film of 'Strangelove' was turned into a black comedy whilst the film version of 'Fail-Safe' was kept serious.View attachment 3229
There's nothing to settle. Conceptual similarity is not sufficient to make a real legal case for plagiarism. Even if it's plagiarism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fail-Safe_(novel)
From wikipedia:
As to the matter for discussion, I've yet to see 'DSC' - I'm waiting on the Blu-Ray - so I've never seen it but I would like a second season to be about exploring strange new worlds, seeking out new lifeforms & new civilisations, boldly going where none have gone before.
That was the mission of the Enterprise, but may not be the mission of Discovery. It also shouldn't be the expectation.
If this spin-off set on Pike's Enterprise is made I wonder if that will be its mission? Anyway military or non-military isn't that Starfleet's primary mission, galactic exploration? Surely therefore Discovery would also be engaged in it.
Starfleet's primary mission is defense, regardless of what their charter says. Everything gets dropped when the Federation is in trouble.
G
Gonzo
Guest
I can understand why they would want to do another show set in the same time period but I am not sure its a good idea, the 90's hit critical Star Trek mass with the result being no Star Trek for a decade.
Well we don't know for sure yet if there will be a spin-off or for that matter a Khan Mini series. Plus as I understand it the shows would run on an alternating rather than concurrent basis unlike TNG 6 & 7/DS9 1 - 7/VOY 1 - 5.
Hahahaha...
HAHAHAHA!!
Yeah, it really is a ridiculous claim. That's not remotely the way casting works. When you are casting, you are focused on all the things that actually matter, which is a hard enough job. Anyone who suggested an effort be made to copy some unrelated video game characters would be laughed out of the room.
Also, a gay couple where one has light coloring and the other dark is not some unique innovation. This is the default approach you use whenever you're casting two characters of the same sex that are going to be frequently paired. You want to get two guys who look notably different because it visually scans better. This is how we ended up with so many buddy movies with one white guy and one black guy.
That's even setting aside the fact that the characters don't actually resemble the actors that much. Anyone who thinks the blond guy looks like Anthony Rapp is in urgent need of an eye doctor.
As I recall, Shran's only appearance in the first two Ent seasons was in The Andorian Incident. Although it was a good episode, I don't see how it made Ent any more of a prequel than it already was.
Ent season 3 did something no other Trek series had ever done, create a entire season arc based on a single mission. Whether you liked the execution or not, it is a fact that none of the other spinoffs had tried this before. In addition to that, Ent presented the first MU episodes with no contact with the RU. Further, in season 4, Ent became the first Trek series to "play" with the show's opening credits (IaMD). These things were, in addition to being "interesting" and valiant" , completely unique to Trek.
I can't speak for Voy or The Orville (The Orville?), but Ent was hardly Trek as usual.
"Shadows of P'Jem" (season one), "Cease Fire" (season two).
You recall incorrectly. Shran appeared twice in S1 and once in S2. Those were the only eps that felt to me like they were building to the UFP that we know. Other than that, Trek as usual. Hell, a lot of it even felt like Trek that we had already seen. They ripped off one DS9 episode so badly that they actually got Rene Auberjonois to guest.
I know, that's why I wrote, "...as good, or better" than the DSC production staff.
I really hope the staff isn't taking any fan advise for the most part. For every 500 who want Burnham dropped from the show, there are another 500 who want her promoted to captain by season's end. As a fanbase, with respect to our "opinions" on where the show should go, collectively, we don't know whether to shit or go blind.
Best the staff do what they think is best, some fans are going to complain no matter what they do.
Enterprise was the worst series, with bland, lifeless characters, and re-tread stories I felt like I'd seen a dozen times (and not told in any kind of new way). Constantly seeing the same actors in the guest roles also got tiresome ("oh that's the guy who play X on Voyager/DS9/TNG!").
It was the result of overexposure, and a creative team behind the scenes that couldn't continue delivering fresh, engaging material week after week after 15 years (you could say 22 given the overlap of DS9). And frankly, that's just an impossible job.
The only saving grace of that show, the only thing that makes it watchable, is the exploration of social issues, the debates of moral and ethical problems.
It could be a bit heavy handed, but that is, to me, when Trek is at its best, and the only reason Enterprise managed to be watchable. Prequel, sequel, war story, or exploration, I keep saying it: that's what makes Star Trek what it is, and Discovery is full of it, though not quite as heavy handed as it may have been in the past.
Discovery is new and refreshing, and I think it's been all the better for that. For all the complaints of Voyager and Enterprise at the time, suddenly people want to go back to "more of the same."
It was the result of overexposure, and a creative team behind the scenes that couldn't continue delivering fresh, engaging material week after week after 15 years (you could say 22 given the overlap of DS9). And frankly, that's just an impossible job.
The only saving grace of that show, the only thing that makes it watchable, is the exploration of social issues, the debates of moral and ethical problems.
It could be a bit heavy handed, but that is, to me, when Trek is at its best, and the only reason Enterprise managed to be watchable. Prequel, sequel, war story, or exploration, I keep saying it: that's what makes Star Trek what it is, and Discovery is full of it, though not quite as heavy handed as it may have been in the past.
Discovery is new and refreshing, and I think it's been all the better for that. For all the complaints of Voyager and Enterprise at the time, suddenly people want to go back to "more of the same."
G
Gonzo
Guest
Having over 20 episodes in each season for each series doesn't help either.
Yeah, I'm not ragging on the writers and creators-- they had an incredibly tough job. Tight budgets, tight schedules, and a heap ton of network restrictions.
And the only reason they took any risks was because the show was nearly universally panned and near cancellation. And those risks made the show better, just not good enough to save it.
The departures and risks Discovery is taking, are.
Won't be the first time, and I guarantee, it's the last time.
It's pretty well known that all of the spins borrowed from each other and TOS.
Soooo, gonna ignore my points about Ent uniquness?
Similar threads
