• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Chancellor L’Rell and Klingon culture moves backwards in a century

fireproof78 said:
The material was already written and just needed to be adapted, as well as a change of leadership midstream for DSC.
Click to expand...

I totally understand it's way more challenging to develop characters (and plots) if you're not working from source material, but developing things on the fly. This is why I've said it was a very, very bad idea for Discovery to "go big" right out of the gate. The first season should have been spent developing characters and building tension, with something like the Klingon War only starting at the very end of the season. Good serialized TV after all not only has seasonal arcs, but an arc which carries across the entire show, which means season 1 is pretty much "setting the table" and getting people intrigued as to what is yet to come. Basically, don't shoot your wad all at once. I mean, the destruction of the entire multiverse was threatened at one point during the first season. Everything is a friggin climb down from that.
 
Groppler Zorn said:
...So none of that was coincidental - there were key characters linking everyone together. And, even in so doing, Klingon culture was explored in deeper ways. Member when Kang Kor and Koloth showed up and they went on a mission with Dax? Member when we learned the strict class system Klingons have through Martok complaining about Kor? Member when we learned that Klingons don’t innately hate romulans and they could live together because of a rumour about worf’s Dad?..
Click to expand...

The Klingons on ST: Discovery aren't necessarily all directly linked to the Federation characters on the Discovery. What we saw transpire with Kol and T'Kuvma could have mostly taken place with or without the Federation DSC characters around. L'Rell wanted to defect because Tyler was Voq. The Discovery was the ship on the front line of the story because it had the spore drive.

Honestly, I found the whole Klingon relationship with TNG era trek to be suffering from the "small universe" syndrome.
 
Last edited:
eschaton said:
This is why I've said it was a very, very bad idea for Discovery to "go big" right out of the gate. The first season should have been spent developing characters and building tension, with something like the Klingon War only starting at the very end of the season. Good serialized TV after all not only has seasonal arcs, but an arc which carries across the entire show, which means season 1 is pretty much "setting the table" and getting people intrigued as to what is yet to come.
Click to expand...
I'm inclined to agree, that's the ideal. Yet it's a tricky balance between narrative integrity and commercial imperatives; shows that do that are often seen as moving too slowly and being boring. Certainly season 1 of Babylon 5 has often been accused of that, even though it does oodles of table-setting, and a lot of people think the same even of S1 of Game of Thrones, at least until they reach the big Dramatic Pivot at the end of the penultimate episode.
 
Jackson_Roykirk said:
Honestly, I found the whole Klingon relationship with TNG era trek to be suffering from the "small universe" syndrome.
Click to expand...

I can see this. As much as I like it, DS9 was even worse when it came to this, given Sisko ended up a god, Martok Chancelor of the Klingon Empire, Rom Grand Negus, etc.

But it's not like Discovery wasn't guilty of this too. I mean, Burnham killed the defacto leaders (if not actual leaders) of the Klingon Empire twice, and installed a third into power. Every Klingon she dealt with aside from Tyvoq either began or ended up being one of the most important Klingons in that historical moment.
 
In these days of "peak TV," when there are so many more shows and channels and streaming services competing for eyeballs, you really need to make a strong impression right away. "Stick around because things really kick into high gear next season!" is a dangerous strategy nowadays, and much more so than in the days of BABYLON-5.

(Says the guy who actually gave up on B-5 early on, and only gave it a second chance because friends I trusted assured me that it had gotten much better.)
 
Greg Cox said:
In these days of "peak TV," when there are so many more shows and channels and streaming services competing for eyeballs, you really need to make a strong impression right away. "Stick around because things really kick into high gear next season!" is a dangerous strategy nowadays, and much more so than in the days of BABYLON-5.
Click to expand...

Can you give me examples of serialized shows which "went big" right from the start and blew up in popularity? It seems like a slow burn is still more common overall. Of course, we don't remember all the slow burn shows that failed in the first season, and with conventional dramas, there's relatively little in the way of stakes to amp up compared to sci-fi. But I'm really scratching my head to think of a successful show where the amp went up to 11 right out the gate.
 
I'm not Greg Cox, but I think he meant shows that catch people's interests immediately and grab them in with a direct hook. Not necessarily that everything was all amped up to an 11 right from Episode 1.

When I watch a new show, I like to like it immediately. I like the immediate feeling of "I can't wait to see more!" rather than think, "Oh, that was kind of okay" and have friends assure me, "Don't worry, it gets better!"
 
Lord Garth said:
I'm not Greg Cox, but I think he meant shows that catch people's interests immediately and grab them in with a direct hook. Not necessarily that everything was all amped up to an 11 right from Episode 1.

When I watch a new show, I like to like it immediately. I like the immediate feeling of "I can't wait to see more!" rather than think, "Oh, that was kind of okay" and have friends assure me, "Don't worry, it gets better!"
Click to expand...

I understand that. But I still believe that DIS's first season would have been just as popular - if not moreso - if they did a series of smaller-bore plots which focused on developing the characters. Hell, I remember how many people after the two-part premier were bummed that we didn't get to have the chance to see XO Burnham serve under Georgiou for awhile. Maybe an entire season could have been done that way, with periodic check-ins with T'Kuvma's group, Stamets home life with Culber/research work, Tilly at the academy, etc. End the season at the conclusion of Episode 2 of "our" Discovery, then have Season 2 about war and redemption arc.
 
eschaton said:
It seems like a slow burn is still more common overall. Of course, we don't remember all the slow burn shows that failed in the first season, and with conventional dramas, there's relatively little in the way of stakes to amp up compared to sci-fi. But I'm really scratching my head to think of a successful show where the amp went up to 11 right out the gate.
Click to expand...
Indeed. One of my favorite, must-watch new shows this past year was Counterpart. It certainly set up an intriguing premise right out of the gate, but after that it was a super slow burn... and absolutely captivating.
 
eschaton said:
Can you give me examples of serialized shows which "went big" right from the start and blew up in popularity? It seems like a slow burn is still more common overall. Of course, we don't remember all the slow burn shows that failed in the first season, and with conventional dramas, there's relatively little in the way of stakes to amp up compared to sci-fi. But I'm really scratching my head to think of a successful show where the amp went up to 11 right out the gate.
Click to expand...

Okay, my favorite new show and a critically-acclaimed new hit which has indeed blown up in popularity: KILLING EVE.

By the end of the very first ep, we had not only been introduced to our two co-leads and their supporting players (amidst much quirky humor and clever dialogue), but there's also been a grisly assassination in Italy, followed by a bloody massacre in London that results in our heroine, an M16 desk jockey, being fired in disgrace--and offered a new job as a genuine secret agent. And, oh yes, the premiere even gives us a fleeting but charged encounter between Eve and her nemesis, a hilariously psycho female assassin, instead of waiting until mid-season (or later) for Eve and Villanelle to finally meet for the first time.

One episode in, both my girlfriend and I couldn't wait to find out what happened next--and were cursing the gods that we had to wait a whole week for the next ep. :)

The thing is, it's easy to imagine a slower, more leisurely-paced version of the show in which Eve gradually catches Villanelle's scent, struggles to convince her skeptical superiors that a single woman is responsible for all these seemingly random murders, doesn't get fired for her efforts until mid-season, and finally comes face-to-face with Villanelle in the season finale, but I'm not sure that would have been as fun and addictive.

KILLING EVE started with a bang and never let up. And it's paid off for them.
 
Last edited:
Greg Cox said:
Okay, my favorite new show and a critically-acclaimed new hit which has indeed blown up in popularity: KILLING EVE.
Click to expand...
Okay, hadn't heard about that before, but it definitely sounds interesting!

That said, it is based on a book series, which as @eschaton mentioned before, probably makes it a bit easier to plan out a show's pacing ahead of time...
 
lawman said:
Okay, hadn't heard about that before, but it definitely sounds interesting!

That said, it is based on a book series, which as @eschaton mentioned before, probably makes it a bit easier to plan out a show's pacing ahead of time...
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the show is only loosely based on the books and has taken considerable liberties with the source material. But we were talking not so much about plotting as pacing. Series don't necessarily move slower or faster depending on whether or not you're making thing up as you go along. KILLING EVE, the tv show, clearly made the decision not to drag things out but to hit the floor running in Episode One. By the end of ep one, Eve is hunting Villanelle. By episode two, Villanelle is returning the compliment. And the cat-and-mouse games are on . . ..

I won't say anything more, for fear of getting spoilery, but, as a rule, the show doesn't keep you waiting for things . . ...
 
lawman said:
The analogy is misplaced here. In a traditional parliamentary system, the Prime Minister is both the head of government and still a member of Parliament.
Click to expand...
that's factually wrong at least in central-European democracies. I admit, I have no idea how it is handled in anglo-saxon countries, but judging by our constitution - which is very similar to most constitutions in Europe - , the Chancellor is not part of the legislative branch. He/she very likely is the head of his/her party though*, which in most cases (but not necessarily) is the party with the most MPs, but is not part of any of the chambers of Parliament itself from the moment he/she gets sworn in as Chancellor to the moment he/she retires from office. if he/she retires as Chancellor without re-elections he actually has a one week window to decide if he/she wants to become a MP or not, given that he/she was on the electoral list in the first place (which is usual).
*that said, it is not de iure necessary to be part of any party to become Chancellor, if he/she is able to get a stable government running that is not immediatly faced with a motion of non confidence by the majority of the MPs, the Chancellor theoretically could be a complete outsider
 
Hythlodeus said:
that's factually wrong at least in central-European democracies. I admit, I have no idea how it is handled in anglo-saxon countries, but judging by our constitution - which is very similar to most constitutions in Europe - , the Chancellor is not part of the legislative branch...
Click to expand...
It's not clear from your comment what country you're in — you mention a Chancellor, so is it Germany? Admittedly, when it comes to Parliamentary governments I'm far more familiar with the Westminster system, which originated in the UK and is still the system of choice for most former British colonies (with the conspicuous exception of the U.S.) and members of the Commonwealth. In that system, the Prime Minister is indeed the head of his/her party, but is also typically an MP, without which status he/she wouldn't be chosen as the head of the party. (This isn't constitutionally mandated in the UK, but then technically nothing is, since the country doesn't have a written constitution, just a set of longstanding traditions.)

Other parliamentary systems follow the Continental model, which has some noteworthy differences (chief executive aside, I'm thinking of proportional representation and open party lists rather than first-past-the-post single-member districts). Of course, there are lots of variations to be found within both systems.

Nerys Myk said:
How many "anglo-saxon" countries are there? It's an odd turn of phrase to my ear.
Click to expand...
The more common phrase these days is "Anglophone," basically referring to those countries where English is the primary or official language, whether due to internal history or to colonial influence. If one were to speak strictly, England itself would arguably be the only "Anglo-Saxon" country.
 
Speaking of Anglo Saxons, the Klingons always reminded me of their culture. They have a system of government that is relatively feudal, they reward warriors and valorise them, and they kinda look a bit like Vikings (ok I know the Vikings weren’t Saxons, but it’s the same era we’re talking about).

Even their language sounds a bit like Old English - what with all the guttural, velar sounds and so forth.

I think that’s perhaps what’s missing from the DSC Klingons. They remind me more of the Persian bad guys in 300 (particularly Xerxes), than they remind me of Vikings.
 
Well, a slow burn season 1, that sets the table for a long arc, is a perfect way for today's "Binge" socity. If it was "back in the day" 5 years ago, then you would have to hook them, then go forward. with binging, you have 1 whole season to set up your story, and then give it a pay off at the end of the season. Basically, some would start it, then be bored after 2 episodes and stop, but others will watch it thru, then tell others that you have to grind through till the end to get the pay off, and it all makes sense why there doing it that way. So the B5 formula is still quite viable, small and large arcs.
Thats my big "derp' thing with shows like Arrow and Flash, they may have a kinda of season Arc, but no show arc, kinda making it up as they go, and it shows. Disco seems to be doing the same thing, making it up as they go instead of planing out 7 seasons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top