No, actually the reverse concept. Discovery Season 1 did everything different, and relied very little on Nostalgia, other than an excursion into the Mirror Universe. Yes, a few characters showed up like Sarek, but it was not a nostalgia-driven story the way Rogue One was. Their criticism of Rogue One is perhaps akin to what we've seen of Season 2, but not even close. There was NO STORY for Rogue One, other than "hey remember Star Wars? Death Star plans? Stormtroopers? Rebels?"
I think Season 1 was a bit of a muddled mess. Elements of it involved callbacks galore, including: Burnham being Spock's sister, bringing in Sarek and causing Spock to be at least mentioned in passing Using the Klingons yet again Going to the Mirror Universe (which included fanwanky references to Enterprise Mudd being showcases in two episodes Lots of little Easter eggs, like references to Archer, Robert April, Shran, the gorn skeleton, Loca's Tribble, etc Seeing the Enterprise in the final shot At the same time, the show went with a choice of visual aesthetics - everything from makeup design to ships, from lighting to uniforms - which didn't really link up closely with any prior Treks, and got some canon nerds rankled. Arguably they also chose a distinct tonal shift towards a more dour/grimdark world than what had been depicted in Trek up until that point. My guess based upon what is known about season 1's production is Bryan Fuller was going for a high-concept reboot of Star Trek which was relatively, if not totally, unmoored from prior canon and continuity. However, once he left CBS felt like more content needed to be placed into the series to have die-hard fans say "hey, I recognize that!" Which is why the series contains a large amount of references to other Trek (compared to the first seasons of the other sequel series) but doesn't really have the same "feel" as either TOS or Berman Trek.
I don’t agree, as he said Discovery was inspired by an event mentioned in TOS but never seen. If he was making it a reboot, why would that event matter? Also his original pitch before CBS had him stick to a single era was that it was going to be an anthology show, where each season would be in a different period of Trek history.
Plus he was responsible for the look of Discovery. The ship, uniforms, sets, props, Klingons........and even some of the storyline. Especially the early episodes have Fuller's imprint all over them. I am hoping THIS season without having to shift gears and retool while IN PRODUCTION will have a much smoother arc and feel.
Apparently he wasn’t responsible for the blue DSC uniforms according to some sources. Allegedly his uniforms were TOS coloured, just not as bright.
If that's your opinion, I can't argue, but I disagree. It wasn't perfect, but "a muddled mess" sounds like hyperbole. Callbacks are not what I am referring to. The point here is that the story did not rely on those things. Rogue One was ONLY about those things. If you've watched RLM, you'll remember they point out a distinct difference between minor callbacks and background references, and nostalgia driven narratives. Mike adored STB and enjoyed the few callbacks and references, but hated STID because its very concept REVOLVED around nostalgia references. I'm arguing about Discovery and what worked and what didn't, I'm pointing out some of the inconsistencies in RLM's critique.
I enjoyed some individual episodes - most of the latter portion of Act 1 - a good deal. But thematically Season 1 was all over the place. The switch in showrunners was quite evident. After Fuller was fired, the show lumbered along due to the sunk cost and CBS's desire for a Trek revival. But I don't think anyone really had a singular vision about where the show was supposed to head, which is why it's so hard to tease out the central themes - why particular things happened beyond it being required by the plot.
I would say the chances of Lt Commander Kirk popping up on Discovery are pretty high. Given that we know virtually nothing about Kirk's pre-Enterprise career, that's not a problem, but it would be yet another callback and an example of small universe syndrome. I say this not knowing how season two will pan out - perhaps having Spock and Pike on the show will be a revelation (I hope so) - but I think Disco should have a bit more conviction in their own characters going forward. It's a fun show and can stand on its own.
All valid criticisms, but I'd hardly call it a "muddled mess." The story may not have been perfect or seamless, but it was easy to follow, and in fact made a lot more cohesive sense than the Xindi story. The characters were interesting and intriguing, and even if some of the "twists" turned out to be unimpressive or predictable, it all worked well enough. The only thing that was a real issue was a rushed and bloated finale that seemed a bit anti-climactic after all the dramatic buildup. To me, that's where the change in show runners was most apparent, as they were forced to resolve a story that they had no real hand in crafting. Still, it seems to me that DSC is being held to some impossibly high standard of perfection by many fans. Trek has very rarely, if ever been perfect. In the past fans like me would revel in the imperfections, looking for fun ways to justify continuity problems, or explain away a plot hole. Now though, any problem is "a muddled mess."
That Last Jedi review was the most detailed dissection I've ever seen on Youtube. Seems like you'll just reject anything that you disagree with no matter how thorough it is.
At some point you have to sort of concede to statistics. I mean, I suppose a few people like Freddie Got Fingered. I think it's safe to say that the movie, objectively speaking, sucks. And, um, that movie has a 1-point advantage on Discovery's audience score.
No, actually I pay attention to what they have to say rather than reaching for the ad hom the way defenders of this sort of content usually do.
People have higher expectations of shows now in the era of "peak TV.' Also, with heavy serialization, it's much more important to get things right. If you have only a 50% batting average with an episodic show with 26 episodes - that's a lot of good TV. But the same 50/50 odds with modern short seasons and heavy serialization means if you fuck up the arc, it's all pretty much tarnished.