Can DC's "Rebirth" teach DSC lessons?

[ISS_Einstein]

Lee and Johns both tweeted, “IT’S NOT A REBOOT”

“It’s not just an event,” Johns said in a promo video “but an ongoing mission for us”.​

I understand the distinction, but we all know that people have very different ideas of what a reboot is on TrekBBS. For me, a reboot is a reboot of continuity. Changing subtle emphasis and stylistic elements and trying to write well is what I would call "a normal day's work" for any writer.

 

[BillJ]

Lee and Johns both tweeted, “IT’S NOT A REBOOT”

Reboot. Altered timeline. Altered continuity. It all means the same thing: it isn't beholden to what came before. They may be trying to play the semantics game, but it is what it is.

 

[Alan Roi]

isn't DSC itself (hot take) being stately in eschewing things like military episodes, and comedy scenes?

You're essay suggests you don't seem to understand how long form fiction works vs. short fiction. It's rarely a string of discrete episodes. And all those things you claim that Discovery eschews are actually part and parcel of the series that you seem to be pretending it doesn't contain. The only significant difference contents wise is that Discovery organizes them is a slightly different manner. I find every element that previous Star Treks contained are contained in Discovery.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

Not just whining about canon, but simple storycraft. For instance, take this article from IO9. Is this in any way an enthusiastic endorsement of the show?

Now read through some of the comments. Here on TrekBBS I see the most support for the show, but outside of this bubble you'll get a better sense of how this is being received.

You want to just keep going on insulting the critics, be my guest, but it won't make the show any better.

I also suspect the strongest supporters of Discovery do it more as an act of defiance than due to its actual merits. Some people just love to support unpopular things, like those who drive AMC Pacers.

I don't take comments sections or the people making the comments seriously. The criticism towards Discovery is nothing I haven't seen before every time a new Star Trek series comes about. Trek fans hate change. TNG wasn't Trek because it didn't have Kirk and Spock, DS9 wasn't trek because it didn't have the enterprise, wasn't on a ship, wasn't TNG (take your pick), Most fans thought Voyager was shit, Enterprise was being accused of being a franchise killer when it came out.

I suspect the strongest supporters of Discovery do it because they like the show. You need to accept that people like and enjoy something that you don't.

 

[BillJ]

I also suspect the strongest supporters of Discovery do it more as an act of defiance than due to its actual merits.

I'm pretty critical of the show, but I think it has its merits. I think the casting and acting are pretty top notch with a couple exceptions.

There's no act of defiance on my part. I'm simply honest about what I see on screen.

Some people just love to support unpopular things, like those who drive AMC Pacers.

Any actual proof that the show is unpopular?

 

[Lord Garth]

I think mos6507 needs to let people speak for themselves. I happen to like the show. If I didn't like it, I would've stopped watching by now. I don't watch shows I don't like or am not interested in. I eventually stopped watching VOY. I stopped watching ENT after six episodes. I stopped watching Andromeda half-way through the first season. I didn't watch The Orville after the first season. I'm still watching Discovery. I haven't stopped watching yet.

If CBSAA puts out a Star Trek series I don't like, I'll stop watching, I won't post about it, you won't hear from me. I was scarce in the ENT Forum. I literally posted in the Kelvin Forum only once during the year Into Darkness came out and only because I've been here since 1999 and I knew there might be some posters who'd want to know my take (I didn't like it). So I posted it, so people could see what I thought, and then I was out of there. Gone! Some people responded to my thoughts but I never replied to them. Because I don't post in or hang around forums devoted to things I don't like.

If someone else wants to do things differently from the way I've historically done them, then fine. But I only came back to TrekBBS because of Discovery. Otherwise, my time here was done. I was just one of those posters who used to post "way back when" who some people missed and that's it. I was a regular the first 10 years of the board, a moderator for six of them, and overall my time on the board had already run its course. A long time ago. I like the show and that's why I'm back. Otherwise, why the Hell would I need this for?

Nothing is more arrogant than someone thinking, "How can you possibly have an opinion different from mine?" I wonder how people can think certain things all the time. Why they have the opinions they have puzzles me a lot sometimes. Other times it doesn't. But the key difference is: I accept that they don't see things the same way I do. I don't say, "Oh, they're only just pretending to like something. I know they really don't." Before someone says, "But you've said you don't think some YouTubers hate Discovery as much as they say!" That's true. But the last time I checked, posters here don't get paid for posts and likes, the same way some YouTubers get paid for clicks. Completely different animal. Otherwise, this board owes me two decades of back pay!

I'm just glad that in this forum, there are a lot of people who like the show as much as I do. But I have some friends and some family who also like the show and they definitely don't post here. Positive blogs and YouTube reviews of Disco also exist. Believe it or not. So it's NOT a case of "no one likes the show except people who post on TrekBBS." It's an exaggeration to say that. Unrelentingly negative opinions are just as exaggerated as unrelentingly positive ones. I at least have the awareness to realize there are extremes on both sides instead of just the one I disagree with.

 

[David cgc]

I see no need to fundamentally change a series which, by the limited metrics available, is doing very well.

It risks burning existing viewers, and has no guarantee of winning back any others. Indeed, it could be perceived as an indication of desperation and failure (and no doubt would be portrayed as such by the usual suspects).

That didn't stop the last three Discovery reboots. God willing, it won't stop a fourth, with a new showrunner taking over for the third season who just happened to write the best episode of season two. If we can get thirteen episodes maintaining the quality and care of the writing in the Airiam episode, I'll be a very happy camper indeed.

That would be a reboot.

If "Let's keep doing what we're doing, except good and on-brand" counts as a reboot for something, that something has bigger problems than what word to use advertising its own evolution.

 

[Alan Roi]

That didn't stop the last three Discovery reboots. God willing, it won't stop a fourth, with a new showrunner taking over for the third season who just happened to write the best episode of season two. If we can get thirteen episodes maintaining the quality and care of the writing in the Airiam episode, I'll be a very happy camper indeed.



If "Let's keep doing what we're doing, except good and on-brand" counts as a reboot for something, that something has bigger problems than what word to use advertising its own evolution.

Yeah, the replacement of a showrunner isn't any of the definitions of reboot.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

I wasn't aware of any reboot within DISCO.
I also don't think one is needed.
As a fan of the show, I have the impulse to defend it, and yes, I do cut Trek more slack than other franchises. But I watch it because I think it's a good show. The same was true for ENT back in the day. It's not perfect, but nothing is, and it annoys me when some people will make up shit that isn't there to criticise it instead of hating it for the right reasons. YouTube critics are especially guilty of this. This goes for every geek franchise (probably all others, too). Take that second Fantastic Beasts movie. There's a lot to criticise, but I've lost count of how many YouTubers just invent shit to mock it for. So I'm done with gimmicky critics and don't care what they say. I don't care if something is popular, either. Either I like it or I don't, but you won't see me trolling folks who actually think The Orville is watchable. I don't think they're making a point. They just like something I don't and have zero interest in. More power to them.

 

[BillJ]

Yeah, the replacement of a showrunner isn't any of the definitions of reboot.

Depends. It definitely seems like the show is being retooled for seasons three. New showrunner and, possibly, a completely new direction.

 

[Alan Roi]

Depends. It definitely seems like the show is being retooled for seasons three. New showrunner and, possibly, a completely new direction.

Sure. Just like it was retooled for season two. And how we got a completely new direction.... I mean, a new serialized story in an ongoing series that further develops the show based on what came before as we move to Disco story #3.

 

[Takeru]

DC held 27% of the comic market (to Marvel's 40%) ... DC's market share completely flipped and improved to 44% (to Marvel's 34%).

The problem with that is that the entire US comic book market is in the toilet, 44% of almost nothing is still almost nothing, both DC and Marvel probably make more money with Batman and Spider-Man pajamas than with the actual comic books and that's before we get to all the other merchandise, cartoons, games, live action shows, movies etc.
While DC's market share grew in reality they just managed to appeal slightly more to an ever shrinking group of comic book readers, it looks good on paper but that's all.

Pandering to a small group of core fans while neglecting a broader audience is not a lesson DSC should learn, if you look at the Marvel and DC shows and movies (i.e. the parts of the business Star Trek resembles the most) they don't concern themselves with canon and continuity, they take what they like from the past, ignore what they don't like, change things, merge characters etc., Discovery has already learned the right lessons, it's parts of the fandom who haven't.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Depends. It definitely seems like the show is being retooled for seasons three. New showrunner and, possibly, a completely new direction.

Does that mean TOS was rebooted three times? (or was it four?)

 

[BillJ]

Does that mean TOS was rebooted three times? (or was it four?)

Yes. No. Maybe? Depends how far away the show drifts away from the previous showrunners. If the Discovery folks are hitting the reset button on the show, then it can be seen as a reboot. Especially if something happens like Spock and Burnham no longer being foster siblings.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Yes. No. Maybe? Depends how far away the show drifts away from the previous showrunners. If the Discovery folks are hitting the reset button on the show, then it can be seen as a reboot. Especially if something happens like Spock and Burnham no longer being foster siblings.

That's a pretty low threshold.

 

[BillJ]

That's a pretty low threshold.

I've found that lots of people have different thresholds of what they accept. If they are essentially changing the core of the Burnham character, then I would think it was a reboot.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I've found that lots of people have different thresholds of what they accept. If they are essentially changing the core of the Burnham character, then I would think it was a reboot.

Not if the changes are presented as part of the story.

 

[GhostLoveScore]

That's not to say Trek wasn't already suffering under the franchise fatigue of Berman.

There are people like me who would enjoy watching exactly the same show as TOS,TNG, DS9 an VOY was. I can watch those shows any amount of time and not be bored.And I assume there are lots of other people like me, judging by the rotten tomatoes audience score.

Change just for the sake of it is not good. If you want to experiment with something more modern, make another SciFi show. Make Star Trek 2999, but don't do TOS prequel and completely remodel it and expect all fans to embrace it.

For me, I can tolerate DIS visual style, but I won't consider it as in the same universe as previous Trek shows.

 

[Lord Garth]

Like I said before, I'm not familiar with what DC's done over the past eight years. But I can draw comparison between Crisis on Infinite Earths and what it looks like DSC is doing with Control, the Red Angel, and Burnham's mother. I don't know for sure if they're trying to go for a Crisis on Infinite Earths approach with Star Trek but, if they are, then I'd call TOS the Golden Age version of the TOS Era and DSC the "Batman: Year One" version of the TOS Era.

The version we're watching is always "Prime". Once it's changed, whatever happened before gets classified as something else, like maybe "The Original Timeline". Kind of like how it's always the "Modern Age" of comics and what happened before will be renamed to something else. Some argue that changes in the timeline that happened in First Contact are what led to ENT. So, I'd look at it like this:

TOS --> Golden Age of the Prime Timeline
TMP-FC --> Silver Age of the Prime Timeline
FC-ENT --> Bronze Age of the Prime Timeline
DSC --> Modern Age of the Prime Timeline

 

[BillJ]

Once it's changed, whatever happened before gets classified as something else.

I can go for that.

Though that hasn't been how they've talked up to this point. According to them TOS is "Prime". Discovery and TOS are supposed to exist in the same timeline.

At least for another three or four weeks.