Spoilers General Disco Chat Thread

[Enterprise is Great]

Remember a few years ago there was a talking Barbie that said "Math is hard!"? With this time jump I get the feeling that Kurtzman was saying "Canon is hard!" and so he decided to send Discovery to the future to make stuff up easier. not a big fan of this move. I hope it's a fake out and they return to the 23rd century by the end of the season.

 

[Planet9]

Anyone who takes Doomcock or Midnight's Edge seriously is out of their mind. Listen to the name: Doomcock! It sounds so stupid when someone says, "Listen to what I heard from Doomcock!" I'm sure that sounds like a cool name to somenone who's 15, but if you're in your 30s or 40s (like I assume he is), it just makes him look like a stupid manchild.

There was a video listed in my feed from Midnight's Edge about how there were delays in the production of the Picard Series. Which is bullshit. They started shooting today. I'm sure there's going to be all kinds of crazy wacky spin from them about both series. Twice as much "fun" now. Yay.



I already have the DISCO T-shirt. I've had it for months. I don't need to buy another one

Ok dude, I'm happy for ya! . I didn't realise, just trying to help out a fella trekka.

 

[Lord Garth]

On another note: I don't agree with @Refuge about DSC, but we manage to get along just fine.

 

[Midquest]

I'm sure I'll love every min of S3...but right now I'm feeling a little stung,.

On one hand, I'm right there with you. I love world-building and I'm a big believer in the mantra/thesis put forward by Adam Pranica on the Greatest Generation podcast: "Star Trek is a place." For me, place is a huge part of what excites me about Star Trek. It's part of the reason why I hope the new season happens in a world where the Federation still exists and we get to revisit places we know but dramatically changed.

And I do think there's an element of bowing to pressure here, but I don't think it's as bad or severe as bowing to the toxic fringe. If they were bowing to Doomcock and the like, they wouldn't have given us even more Michael, more Stamets/Culber, more people of color in background roles, and so on. I think it's more likely that the pressure has come from fandom more broadly (even if I think most canon arguments are extremely silly). It's got to get exhausting to always work within a canon that is fifty years old. No reasonable person knows every intimate detail of that history, and so what do you do as a writer? Live with the anxiety that you're going to discover some conflict between what you're writing and what came before? No, I think at some point it's pretty understandable to want to put the painting away and take out a fresh canvas.

So I don't know. I'm trying to be optimistic. I didn't want a prequel and I loved it. I didn't want Klingons and I ended up liked them. I really didn't want Pike or Spock or the Enterprise and I fell in love with them, too. Whatever anyone thinks about Discovery, it's hard to deny that they're aiming for some ambitiously intricate storytelling, so I think for now I choose to think this is another instance of big ambition and no matter how much I don't feel sure about it, they're going to show me their instincts were good.

That's my take, anyway.

 

[Lord Garth]

It's got to get exhausting to always work within a canon that is fifty years old. No reasonable person knows every intimate detail of that history, and so what do you do as a writer? Live with the anxiety that you're going to discover some conflict between what you're writing and what came before?

The thing is: 21 of those seasons are from the 24th Century. The only canon that matters, as far as DSC is concerned is ENT and TOS. The only series that takes place before it and the only series that takes place almost immediately after it, respectively. Effectively, you can eliminate 75% of the material because it has nothing to do with Discovery at all.

You can eliminate even more than that because DSC doesn't have the Suliban or the Xindi and they used the 100-year-gap to turn the Klingon Empire on its head. Nothing from ENT carried over except for the Easter Egg of the Defiant.

So, really, DSC only had to deal with three seasons of TOS canon. It's not a matter of "All the Massive Canon!" because it's not. It's a matter of how does one series effect the series that takes place 10 years after it?

Beyond that, the biggest issue Discovery has with canon beyond TOS is the Spore Drive. The Spore Drive is a sticking point because it's not around in TOS, TNG, DS9, or VOY. So, in the 23rd Century, there always has to be some sort of complication or drawback to using it: Stamets is infused with Tardigrade DNA, it takes too much out of him, the Mycellial Network has beings living inside of it with an ecosystem that can be disrupted, yadda, yadda. There always has to be some sort of bug. In "The Future", they're free to perfect the technology. This is why I say I can see the story reason...

... but this was more something I saw them doing toward the end of the series, when they finally had to explain what ultimately happened to the Spore Drive down the road, not two seasons in. What I don't like is the angle of "We'll never talk about Discovery or the Spore Drive, under the penalty of Treason." That sounds really over-the-top.

On the other hand: we've never had the main crew of a Star Trek series adjusting to now living in a future time. And they'll be as lost in this new setting as we are. It's a new spin. So there are ups and downs to the change.

 

[Refuge]

I've got to tell you....

I've sat on this for some time, and I'm actually really pretty upset about this whole "going to the future" thing.

I really enjoyed Star Trek: Discovery. The first two seasons were flawed, and yet still established themselves as my (now) second favorite Trek series (which is saying a lot, because nothing will ever unseat TOS). I liked how it tied to the TOS backstory and characters. It was unique, where most of the other shows deliberately tried to avoid this period...DSC embraced it and dove right into it...often lovingly enriching the source material.

Moreover, Star Trek's appeal to me is in large part the setting. The Federation, Starfleet, Klingons, Neutral Zones, Star Bases, etc. If we jump to the 76th Century or whatever they're doing, it could be any other Space Adventures Series. Just because they have a ship that has a saucer and two engine thingies sticking out, and they wear arrowheads on their uniforms....I'm not sure that's enough. It's one of the key reasons Voyager didn't appeal to me. I missed the Star Trek setting.

I guess I don't know who to be more angry with:

1. The detractors...for mercilessly pushing their agenda? People get heated in debates about Trek...but then there are the people who literally are pushing an agenda to transform the destiny of the show. Whether it's cancelling it or changing the creative choices, they figure if you post enough, and loudly and enough people "follow" you, you can change the history of the franchise. And I've always found that shitty. People criticize why fans say "if you don't like it, don't watch" as a tiresome mantra? Well...honestly...this is why. Because it's kinda shitty for the people who actually were happy watching what was, by our estimation, just fine the way it was.

or

2. The producers...for actually listening to the idiots? I've always said that the minute a coach starts listening to the fans about what plays to call, who to draft, and which players are going to start...they are done. Dead in the water. Kurtzman basically did EXACTLY that, by my read of what's been said and what's happened. And, I'm the guy who sat in disbelief as it slowly unfolded, having been quoted on here several times saying that there's no way in hell that the writers/producers will listen to fan input to creative choices (wrong AGAIN, V'Ger23!). But, by all appearances, that is precisely what they did. I'm beside myself.

Anyway, I'm bummed for what potentially could be the loss of my favorite Star Trek show (TOS aside) to an over-reaction / panic bowing to the relentless and vocal minority of criticisms. I wish they had spent that time and energy tightening up the writer's room, solidifying their arc and character development, and putting together another step-improvement from S2 to S3...having faith in their current format and in their fans who have enjoyed and supported the work already done. Focusing on improving the writing process and staying in the consistent and familiar territory they had already established could have made S3 something really spectacular.

As it stands now, it kinda feels like they had no faith in those of us who watched the show and enjoyed it. It feels more like they'd rather have Doomcock and Midnight's Edge and their followers as subscribers.

Sorry for the over-reaction. I'm sure I'll love every min of S3...but right now I'm feeling a little stung,.

You have always been immensely loyal. I don't think the detractors have the influence suggested. Admittedly the future has been where I would've liked new Trek to have explored. NOW that it is going there I just hope it doesn't mess with that timeline but the concept of people from the past fitting in with the future will be the challenge.

 

[Planet9]

Ok dude, I'm happy for ya! . I didn't realise, just trying to help out a fella trekka.

How much did you pay? And where did u get it?

 

[Locutus of Bored]

You have always been immensely loyal. I don't think the detractors have the influence suggested. Admittedly the future has been where I would've liked new Trek to have explored. NOW that it is going there I just hope it doesn't mess with that timeline but the concept of people from the past fitting in with the future will be the challenge.

Every version of the future we have seen is by definition only a possible future, not something set in stone (Pike's time crystal vision aside). Just by characters getting a glimpse of that possible future they will —intentionally or not— start making changes to how they or others behave that will have a subtle to profound effect on that future.

For (a hypothetical) instance, Janeway may not like some of the heavy-handed tactics of the temporal cops from Captain Braxton's 29th century Federation, so she makes a proposal to Starfleet on how to deal with as yet uncommitted temporal crimes that alters Federation policy for centuries to come, and makes those future temporal cops a little more lenient.

This is all just a roundabout way of saying I doubt they'll pay much concern to whether things match up with Captain Braxton and the Relativity or Daniels or the 31st century TARDIS timepod that was bigger on the inside from Enterprise. They might borrow elements from all of those but they'll probably go their own way, as they should, because the future is not set.

 

[BillJ]

I do wonder if the number of people watching began to slide a bit? I simply can't imagine CBS agreeing to essentially retool the show to this degree (completely changing the setting) if it was doing that well with the numbers that are important to them.

 

[JoeZhang]

What retooling?

It will still be a sailing ship where people rock from side to side and still have the same main cast.

To hard-core nerds, the time jump is a big thing to normal people its just part of the show.

 

[Alan Roi]

I do wonder if the number of people watching began to slide a bit? I simply can't imagine CBS agreeing to essentially retool the show to this degree (completely changing the setting) if it was doing that well with the numbers that are important to them.

Or it was always part of the plan. A new setting is hardly a retooling. Changing the ship, replacing major cast members, that's a retooling, but none of this is happening as far as we know. .

 

[Vger23]

So I don't know. I'm trying to be optimistic. I didn't want a prequel and I loved it. I didn't want Klingons and I ended up liked them. I really didn't want Pike or Spock or the Enterprise and I fell in love with them, too. Whatever anyone thinks about Discovery, it's hard to deny that they're aiming for some ambitiously intricate storytelling, so I think for now I choose to think this is another instance of big ambition and no matter how much I don't feel sure about it, they're going to show me their instincts were good.

That's my take, anyway.

Well said, that's pretty much my thinking and experience as well.

 

[ITDUDE]

I'm interested in where there going, leery of the writing staff being able to put together a coherent compelling narrative.

So I'm torn.

I think it's safe to assume, they will end up in some kind of "Bad" future (No federation, Borg everywhere, something to that effect) where they will end up needing to "save the future" and will end up resetting the timeline (here is that "reset" button again) so that the "bad" future doesn't happen. Yeah, we'll see a version of 32nd century but they will reset it by the end, so any world building they will do in the 32nd century would not be permanent and will be erased. Maybe they can actually pull it off, cannot screw up continuity if you just reset it at the end of the season

 

[ITDUDE]

Good God, I'm 78!

I'm 40 going on 18-ish (without all the entitlement crap that kids these days have) but with alcohol privileges:

 

[ITDUDE]

No, it doesn't, because the standard modern television business model is completely different from what it was 20 years.

Again, I point to Game of Thrones. Less than 80 episodes over eight seasons as basically the most popular tv show in existence. That episode count has absolutely nothing to do with a lack of demand. It's a modern expectation (which can also be found across dozens and dozens of other highly successful shows).

If DSC stays on the air for 10 years, it will have somewhere in the range of 140ish episodes compared to TNG's 180ish, but staying on the air for 10 years would still be a totally unprecedented achievement for a Star Trek series that would fundamentally prove its extremely high popularity.

Current streaming business model is all about content. Lots and lots of varied different content. Quality is important, quantity (of episodes) much less so.
For example, all things being equal. CBSAA would prefer 10 different Star Trek shows, each with 10 episodes for a total of 100. That way the can sell 10 different shows. Production costs what they are (they can't just launch a brand new show every single year and kill the previous one), they have to have some sacrifices. They'll settle for 3 or 4 different shows with 30(ish) or so episodes each. they will still end up with same number of episodes but they will have at-least 3 to 4 shows to sell.

 

[Kor]

So... are they doing any Short Treks before Season 3? If not, I'll put my CBSAA subscription on hiatus.

Kor

 

[Alan Roi]

So... are they doing any Short Treks before Season 3? If not, I'll put my CBSAA subscription on hiatus.

Kor

Supposedly 2 animated short treks coming soon. Might be filming short treks for and in advance of the Picard show based on production info I have seen, but they likely won't be released until the fall.

 

[ITDUDE]

So... are they doing any Short Treks before Season 3? If not, I'll put my CBSAA subscription on hiatus.

Kor

Good plan. CBSAA is likely to decrease prices sometime between now and November (when Disney+ comes out). I would also bet they may have some promotions to entices people to “come back”, maybe a free month, maybe buy one month get one free, something like that. With Disney+ there is going to be a streaming price war, consumers will definitely benefit.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Remember a few years ago there was a talking Barbie that said "Math is hard!"? With this time jump I get the feeling that Kurtzman was saying "Canon is hard!" and so he decided to send Discovery to the future to make stuff up easier. not a big fan of this move. I hope it's a fake out and they return to the 23rd century by the end of the season.

The 23rd Century setting was a big selling point for me. So I'm a little down right now. Frankly, Kurztman should have ignored the canonistas.

 

[BillJ]

...ignored the canonistas.

Should be the first rule of Trek Club.