Point taken.
Which newer Trek franchise do you prefer, Discovery or the Kelvin movies?
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
NuTrek held so much promise, when it started out as "not your father's STAR TREK." The freshness was very welcome, though it did not deviate as much as it had suggested it might. But the cast is superb and the desire to entertain is evident, even though Beyond was a disappointment to me, for any number of reasons ...
I'm enjoying and look forward to the new episodes of DSC. I have my gripes. I'm a Trekkie after all.
However, I prefer the Kelvin universe. It's TOS with all its color and action adventure splashed across the big screen with a blockbuster budget. Also, it's fun. The movies take on some heady topics but it still has joy and a sense of excitement.
Discovery is just too somber at times.
However, I prefer the Kelvin universe. It's TOS with all its color and action adventure splashed across the big screen with a blockbuster budget. Also, it's fun. The movies take on some heady topics but it still has joy and a sense of excitement.
Discovery is just too somber at times.
with donald trump scaring the shit out of me on a daily basis, star trek: discovery's brand of angsty, angry, gory, wartime star trek is not what i need right now. this is especially true compared to star trek beyond's brightly colored message of peace and togetherness.
it's like the kelvin timeline films represent what i want the future to be. star trek: discovery is what i fear it's going to be.
it's like the kelvin timeline films represent what i want the future to be. star trek: discovery is what i fear it's going to be.
The Kelvin movies.
Because they did one very smart thing; they went out of their way to tell the fans that the Prime Timeline was still out there and that they weren't messing about with it. And therefore all the wacky changes and differences in the Kelvin timeline are something fans can be absolutely fine with.
JJ has his flaws, but he was smart enough to know that he shouldn't mess with the established timeline - but that he could make his own little sandbox and do whatever he wanted in it.
Because they did one very smart thing; they went out of their way to tell the fans that the Prime Timeline was still out there and that they weren't messing about with it. And therefore all the wacky changes and differences in the Kelvin timeline are something fans can be absolutely fine with.
JJ has his flaws, but he was smart enough to know that he shouldn't mess with the established timeline - but that he could make his own little sandbox and do whatever he wanted in it.
In that case, you were watching too many TV shows that had the same problems.
That's why we have STD and the new movies.
I also don't really watch TV.
In which case, I am satisfied with the result.
Same here. As I said in an earlier post, if Star Trek "powers that be" listened to the fans in the past, I'd estimate about 85% of Star Trek wouldn't have gotten made.
On the other hand, we probably would have gotten Star Trek Phase 2 a whole lot earlier.
Ever read any of those scripts or story outlines? We're probably pretty lucky we didn't get Phase 2!
So that’s why we still ended up with ‘The Child.’
And also why I don’t feel very lucky.
So, STD and the Kelvin movies are the first TV shows and movies that you've seen for a long time. Given that, you will obviously find them satisfactory.
No, I watch MASH and NCIS reruns constantly on DVD.
I find them satisfactory because I am engaged with the characters. Could they be better? Sure, I would have gone a different direction. But, I'm learning to approach media as it is, not what I wish it to be.
It was probably the other way round:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Original_Series#Syndication
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Motion_Picture#Early_development
The problem is that credit levels and the need for more profits compelled studios to expand to international markets for features, and that required large marketing budgets, and later more emphasis on action and spectacle to cut across language barriers, which meant high production costs. That's why the latest Star Trek movies resemble many other Hollywood fantasy, sci-fi, and superhero tent-poles, with production time decreased because many of them involve prequels, sequels, reboots, remakes, etc.
STD was designed along the same lines: easy-to-follow plots crammed with lots of content, especially scenes involving spectacle, just like the latest Hollywood tent-poles. Hence, $8 million in costs per episode and reliance on Netflix international sales to cover much of it.
Here's the deal... I was so pleasantly surprised by the 2009 Star Trek movie that I would have gladly been full on Kelvinverse after a lifetime of Prime Trek devotion. BUT...
Into Darkness was not only a full on crap pile onto decades of Trek lore, it was also just a stupid, poorly written, incoherent, exploitative, and character non-developing P.O.S.
Even the sort of fun, standalone episode romp of Beyond couldn't save the mess they made with Into Darkness.
At the same time, out of 9 episodes so far of Discovery, there are 3 I could do without... so we're talking about a pretty close ratio of 66% success to 30% failure.
Unfortunately.... the 30% failure of Kelvinverse is an overrated British fop as "John Harriman Khan", making Carol Marcus a half naked scream queen for no reason, and Kirk taking his turn in the radioactive shame chamber but only for a second so Spock can go full psycho on a floating SUV for an anticlimax.
So yeah I'm gonna say I'll take Discovery with all its unanswered but nonetheless interesting problems of secret adopted sisters and interdimensional mushroom warps and weird klingon customs over JJ Abrams using beloved aspects of canon to pick his nose.
Into Darkness was not only a full on crap pile onto decades of Trek lore, it was also just a stupid, poorly written, incoherent, exploitative, and character non-developing P.O.S.
Even the sort of fun, standalone episode romp of Beyond couldn't save the mess they made with Into Darkness.
At the same time, out of 9 episodes so far of Discovery, there are 3 I could do without... so we're talking about a pretty close ratio of 66% success to 30% failure.
Unfortunately.... the 30% failure of Kelvinverse is an overrated British fop as "John Harriman Khan", making Carol Marcus a half naked scream queen for no reason, and Kirk taking his turn in the radioactive shame chamber but only for a second so Spock can go full psycho on a floating SUV for an anticlimax.
So yeah I'm gonna say I'll take Discovery with all its unanswered but nonetheless interesting problems of secret adopted sisters and interdimensional mushroom warps and weird klingon customs over JJ Abrams using beloved aspects of canon to pick his nose.
In terms of writing, MASH is superior to STD. The latter has clunky dialogue and poor character development, among others. Examples include
Lorca arguing that he should go by the book in one scene and then the opposite in another, Burnham reporting that the war is almost won in one episode and then the opposite in the next, Burnham's past and her act of mutiny (also, Lorca's past), the awkward manner by which the crew describe how spore tech works (sounds like a secondary school presentation), the lack of development of the war against the Klingons, Burnham's past, and more, several character errors and weird behavior (no one else in the whole ship capable of being Chief of Security, so they get a former POW, which on the other hand might make sense given what happened to the previous Chief, Lorca ordering his crew to try to shoot "something," Lorca supposed to be tough but readily accepts insults from Stamets, fancy tech left in derelict ships which they ignore in favor of a telescope), bewildering use of tech (which appears in other shows, but is prominent in this one, such as having to do multiple jumps coupled with sensors to map cloaked enemy ships when they could just target the space adjacent to the space curves)
Thus, the main problem for STD is the same as those found in the Kelvin movies and Hollywood tent-poles in general: poor writing characterized by weak character development, in turn caused by too much content crammed in order to enhance spectacle and action as much as possible, and in some cases a lack of logic in characters' actions and clunky dialogue.
The solution is actually not that difficult: just spread out the content of the current STD episodes across more episodes, and try to avoid giving any backstories piecemeal across too many episodes. This not only resolves problems with a lack of character development, it also allows viewers to understand characters' behavior, not to mention add a degree of suspense so that viewers will be engaged in knowing the outcome of what should be major story arcs (like the war against the Klingons). While they are at it, they can also deal with the less significant problems, such as making any technofixes believable
(spores, then magic trees, then no need for the latter thanks to a targeting algorithm?).
The catch is that these might not be possible given the tent-pole phenomenon I've described.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank you for outlining it better, rather than just referencing a video. That wasn't very helpful.
I think there is sufficient character development in both Kelvin (especially Kirk) and DISCO, which isn't done yet. I've followed it just find, built my own reactions in the process and enjoy it as much as any other show. I may not revisit in the same way, but its entertaining. For me, that's enough.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
- Poll
