This, right here.
I'll second the idea that it's a ridiculous idea to compare DSC's first six episodes to your favorite Trek series, whatever it might be, at its peak.
Let's talk about the elephant in the room, this series violates Roddenberry's vision big time
- Thread starter Sci-fi fan
- Start date
I'll second the idea that it's a ridiculous idea to compare DSC's first six episodes to your favorite Trek series, whatever it might be, at its peak.
I will compare six to six though,
So far for me personally, I gotta say DISCO s1 is better than ent, voy, tng,
It is quite true that Picard frequently had other completely unnecessary co-Captains seated with him, such as Troi. But in this classic scene "Bev" makes it pretty clear that she feels completely entitled to be there. Also note the Mary Sue aspect of the fact that it is actually Wesley who is commanding himself off of the bridge, because Jean Luc is too much of a wuss to do something like command a starship if it might hurt someone's feelings.
Indeed. IMNSHO, Discovery is worlds better than TNG ever was, especially when comparing first season to first season. Others are free to disagree.
I will agree with that. I do think DSC has some work to do and it is starting to get a better foothold on things, but it has had a better start than most of the Trek spinoff series.
To each his own,
I'm excited to see where STD takes me.
I'm excited to see where STD takes me.
Not sure it is taking us anywhere we haven't been before. Which is disappointing.
Every show in existence, with a high level overview, could be skewed as unoriginal retreads of something else especially if one is just being a negative nelly all the time and that's all one wants to see.
I find in execution, tv to be mostly a fair bit more intricate, and that discovery is doing some original things, some retreads of typical dramatic elements.
Execution is always key. But I'm curious about what you find original about Discovery?
To me, that's where DSC doesn't quite work. I like the visuals and that it's slowly getting itself going as the series progresses.
But to me, it's not gone anywhere. I don't feel my imagination being captured yet. For me, a sign that Star Trek would be doing that is that I get heavily back into my hobby of astronomy, using my telescope and looking out there.
DSC so far hasn't inspired me to do that.
Same here. I avoided TNG after the first season for seven years. It was not enjoyable and didn't "feel" like Star Trek. It had no characters of interest and were kind of unpleasant.
DSC at least has me curious to what is going to happen to these characters. I may not "like" them, but that is highly subjective. Their journey is interesting, and I find myself curious about the technology, which got me in to TOS in the first place.
Considering most of the complaints have been something along the lines of "it's too different", I don't see how this makes any sense.
DSC feels very different from all previous Trek, and to me, that's a good thing, because Berman Trek was far to homogenized. TNG shook things up, and now DSC is. But I know you'll just deny it and call it dull. TNG was not just dull as dishwater during its first season but also rock-stupid, and yet somehow enough people cared about it that it survived and got better. DSC is already better than TNG was at this point, and will also survive.
This captures my feelings similarly.
This is another example of different people getting different things out of the same shows. To me, what drives Star Trek is the world, the characters, the races, the ships, the general mythos. I want a series that will both add to that and enhance what we already know about it. I was totally enthralled with the stuff concerning Sarek's motivations for Spock finally being truly delved into. For 50 years, it's been "Sarek was just an elitist asshole who wanted his son to be a true Vulcan, and was pissed that Spock didn't fall in line". Now there's a much more sympathetic, and believable, reason for that. Yes! I love it! More stuff like this, please!
Being elitist is a very believable reason. Sarek was meant to be elitist, he was meant to be Vulcan. I truly dislike that they went back and rewrote something that has stood for fifty years.
Rewriting what came before, changing the very nature of the character comes off as very unimaginative.
Sarek did have an issue with Spock joining Starfleet. It is mentioned by Amanda in "Journey to Babel", and reinforced in Star Trek IV.
Journey to Babel said:
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home said:
Sarek appeared entirely elitist to our eyes, knowing nothing of his life, in his first appearance in "Journey To Babel" - but he would almost have to, by contrast with everyone else. Even then, the writer felt the need to at least hang a lantern on the question "why would he marry a human being?"
Sarek as portrayed by Frain is not, IMO, one of Discovery's many weak points.
Sarek as portrayed by Frain is not, IMO, one of Discovery's many weak points.
Frain isn't, he's a good actor. Sarek is. I didn't need them to rewrite TOS to fit whatever vision they have of it. Frain could have played any Vulcan, and could be used at a later date to rip Burnham's heart out when he is killed by Klingons after Burnham gets emotionally close to him.
But, the writers need to remake TOS in their image is limiting the dramatic potential of the series.
I find this Sarek as interesting and enjoyable as most of his appearances, and appreciate the backstory. Similarly with ST 09's Sarek and his exposition on why he married Amanda.
To me, it isn't rewriting it. It is expanding upon it in even more detail.
