Spoilers If you could change one thing about Discovery

It's not a change I'd make, because Mia Kirshner does a great job as Amanda, but I have to point out that the age difference between her and Sonequa Martin-Green seems way too small at face value. Mia was born in 1975, Sonequa was born in 1985, and it's Mia's performance that makes me totally buy her as Amanda. I wouldn't have been able to suspend my disbelief if she wasn't such a good actor.

 

No, with TNG, it was basically Picard's story with Data as secondary character. In Voy, it was Janeway's point of view, with Seven as secondary character. With Ent, it was Archer's point of view, with T'Pol as secondary character. And in DSC, it is Burhnham's point of view, with Lorca as secondary character in season 1, and Spock or Pike as secondary in season 2.

Perhaps the fact that DSC has only 13-15 episode seasons, makes Burnham's viewpoint seem more starkly presented to you. If there were 9-10 additional episodes per season, perhaps you wouldn't feel Burnham's viewpoint was so out front.

Or maybe if Burnham was a captain you'd not have a problem with the first two seasons being from her viewpoint.

 

Agreed I was just trying to make a point - which is addressed by your next comment:

With “the next generation” I’m inclined to agree since this is a broad name that could cover anything - the only thing it really ties down is the setting (a generation later than TOS). With DS9, VOY sand ENT, the title explicitly focuses the story more than TNG did - following the trend of the other 3 spinoffs, TNG should have been called “Enterprise-D”, as every other title has centred on the main craft (station or starship). Neither TOS nor TNG did this. So the title does seem to have more of an influence in the shows since DS9.

This is my point about DS9 though. I agree it was the most ensemble show, but Sisko was integral to *all* the events of the series. The prophets *needed* him to be born and took over the body of a human woman to make sure that he existed. Ds9 couldn’t have happened if Sisko didn’t exist. In that sense, Sisko is as integral to the events of DS9 as Burnham is to the events of DSC so far. If i was to make one change to DSC it would be to refocus the stories so that Burnham’s importance was more muted - like what happened with Sisko on ds9.

Ds9 doesn’t feel like it’s *all* about Sisko - when in reality it is.

Not all of dsc is about Burnham, but it often feels like it is.

I know this wasn’t a response to something I said, but for me, even if Burnham was captain, the way the dsc universe tends to revolve around her would still be an issue - it’s in relation to my comment above about Sisko and ds9 (where the events literally *did* revolve around him - but the show didn’t focus as much on it as dsc focuses on Burnham)

 

"The Next Generation"-format shows were extremely popular in the 80s. They were basically what reboots are now. And Star Trek was far from the only "Next Generation" show out there. It usually meant a show with the same premise as the original show, but a new cast of characters taking up the mantle.

It's a good choice. I'd much rather have "Magnum - The next Generation" (following Magnums daughter or newly discovered son), or "A-Team - The Next Generation", than having reboot after reboot, where people are locked in creatively, and can't exactly copy the original, but never stray too far away from it either.

But as far as the topic of this thread is concernde - "Star Trek - The Next Generation" was an extremely well defined premise. Better than "Star Trek" originally actually.

 

Oh I agree. All I meant was that the title of “the next generation” didn’t necessarily focus the show on the enterprise - the name “Star Trek” did. The titles of the following spinoffs all focused their respective shows on their various ships and stations. In most cases the “lead” was the initial focus of the show, but as we saw with ds9 it didn’t have to work like that.

And bear in mind Sisko is the most important character in *all* of Star Trek. Without him the universe would not even exist.

No Sisko meant: no Worf at ds9 meaning a successful Klingon invasion of Cardassia. Arne Darvin successfully gains access to the Orb of Time, travels back to the 2260s and blows up James Kirk on K7.

Benjamin Sisko is the single most important character in the *entire* franchise.

But he spent so much time trying to distance himself from being the emissary (and ds9 didn’t dwell on Sisko’s importance) that you’d never know just how vital Sisko was to the entire Star Trek canon universe.

Burnham is, I think, less important, but the focus of the show is written in a way that makes it feel like she’s the Sisko.

And Burnham is not the Sisko

 

Change one thing? That's a tough one....

I guess it would be time period. Either 20 years earlier to create more space between Discovery and TOS or really I would prefer that Discovery happened in the late 24th century or 25th century.

 

I would have put it in the early 24th century.

 

I'd have set in the 25th or 26th century. There would be greater room for manoeuvre in fleshing out a new status quo and not having to worry about stepping on the toes of continuity.

 

Wow, that's a really good idea. I mean, that works because they can still include Sarek and Amanda and have the Spock-Burnham angle without it being as awkward because they would've adopted Burnham after Spock's time on the Enterprise. Even though we wouldn't get Pike on the show, they could've expanded on Captain Garrett and the Enterprise-C perhaps, or maybe had Garrett at a point earlier in her career. You can even have the lack of Klingon contact, just say, 20 or 30 years or so instead of the 100.

 

I'd have Bryan Fuller publish his outline of what his DSC was supposed to be like over the course of three or four seasons.

For the show itself, I'd change Michael's name. Yes, the woman has a male name.
Super clever.

 

I love this idea. The early 24th century is somewhat under developed (except for bits in Beta canon). This era would have allowed for the inclusion of the Romulans as well - perhaps a series of events leading up to the destruction of the Enterprise-C paralleled with political relations with the Klingons.

Curzon Dax and Kang could also have made appearances.

Ok we’d have had to deal with a similar “visual reboot”, but I think it would have been less jarring than the treatment the 23rd century aesthetic received on DSC.

If they’d never mentioned that Michael had a traditionally (by 21st century standards) male name, I wouldn’t have minded. But then Tilly brings it up in like episode 3 of the first season. If it was nbd to call her Michael, why have a character bring it up?

 

I hadn't thought about Curzon, but yeah, that would be cool to revisit him. It got me thinking that a "Lost Era" set show also could've brought in the TOS actors as well. We also could've revisited Demora Sulu and developed that character more. Depending on exactly when they set it, we could see the Cardassians first take over Bajor, we could get younger Joseph Sisko and Janeway's parents in the mix. We could maybe even get the Stargazer. There's a lot of little nods that could've been given for all of the series. Even the time travel stuff could've been tied into the Temporal Cold War to make sure nods to Enterprise are included.

The visual reboot would be an issue, but I would be more charitable in the Lost Era than the trying to make DIS fit in the TOS era, because we are dealing with roughly 70 years from TOS movies to TNG and I'm okay with them having the Discovery look and ships be before the 2340s. For some reason, Starfleet decides to go back to more of a TOS movie era look when it comes to uniforms in the 2340s. But there's a lot of space between to play around with designs. And that "Lost Era" could easily explain the Klingon absence due to them grappling with fixing their homeworld.

 

I'm not so sure about this. TOS and Enterprise are actually outliers from a production point of view in the sense that everything that chronologically came after them basically used the same production assets originally developed for Phase II and The Motion Picture - the Enterprise Bridge that most famously became the Enterprise-D battle bridge among dozens of other locations, the Corridor sets, the various starship filming models created for the movies and TNG, the alien makeup designs developed for TNG and so on. The high level of visual consistency in movie- and Berman-era Star Trek that we've gotten used to and have come to expect is basically a function of 1.) Paramount saving costs wherever possible and 2.) Star Trek being more-or-less continuously in production from the '80s to the mid-2000s.

So I think people who found Discovery's design aesthetics too far removed from TOS for their tastes would have the same problem with a similar-looking series set in the Lost Era. And in that regard, I can understand why the most common bullet point in "how I would've done it differently" lists is setting the series post-Nemesis. If avoiding Discovery's visual language clashing with previous Trek productions is an absolute must for someone, that's the only way to truly do it. Basically, if one has a problem with Discovery because they can't see the technology and the ships in it change into those seen on TOS, they'd find it even more jarring if there was a time in the Lost Era where for example the ubiquitous Excelsiors or Klingon Birds-of-Prey looked wildly different, on both the inside and outside, for ten years or so before being returned to their classic looks.

On the other hand, in order not to sound absolutely negative, The Lost Era would actually be a great setting for a Star Trek series simply because we barely know anything about that era and, just like Discovery's original timeframe, we have only encountered it by having the characters discuss it and of course the occasional flashback.

 

I would *love* this - but it’s rooted way too deeply in the Berman era to ever be made sadly. They’d have to have a title crawl the extent of the entire Memory Alpha database just to explain the backstory

I’d like to think I’d have been more forgiving of the “visual reboot” in this era too, but as @SJGardner points out below, the iconicity of ships, etc. from that era would make *any* visual reboot jarring to me.

Which is why Star Trek should be treated as a period piece in my opinion (but I know, I know, I need to get over it haha!)

*disgruntled murmuring*

You’re right of course but I’m way too nitpicky over the visuals. I believe they’re part of canon and can’t be divorced from it - that is the order of things.

(That’s meant to be tongue in cheek btw - but the visual thing still bugs me!)

You’re probably right on this. The Excelsior is one of my favourite designs. I think I’d be more distraught if they “visually rebooted” that design than the unnecessary changes they made to the 1701. I wasn’t happy with the hull flare and spoilers on the Enterprise-B when I first saw Generations.

Nobody would watch the Star Trek show I would have made

 

I would have found a way to bring Airiam from the dead.

 

I generally don't have a problem with Discovery's design choices (even though I had way too much fun making up headcanons about the Klingon make-up being a work-in-progress version of a gene therapy for augment virus survivors), but it might have something to do with the fact that I grew up with TNG-era Star Trek so I didn't really have a close emotional connection to TOS save for the nostalgia factor. I legitimately have no idea how I'd react to updated visuals in a 24th century show, though I suspect and hope I'd ultimately have no issues with them either. I usually treat story canon and visual continuity differently, with the former being more important for me.

My biggest problem with the Enterprise-B's additions was that the way they were designed and glued to the filming model just made it painfully obvious that they had no real purpose other than being disposable breakaway parts so that the Nexus effects wouldn't damage the actual filming model. Which was totally idiotic in multiple ways, considering that 1.) they actually built an enlarged partial model of the damaged section 2.) Every single shot of the ship in the Nexus, including the explosion, was full CGI anyway and 3.) gluing on the extra parts damaged the model itself. A brand new Excelsior had to be created for its appearance on Voyager because the original model was essentially stuck as the Enterprise-B.

I've already said it elsewhere, but if I had my way and total creative control, DSC would be called The Tilly Show and would probably be axed before its pilot even finished airing

 

You might get you're wish. She does have cybernetic implants after all.

Spoiler

My theory is she will turn up in season 3 after being revived somehow following centuries of floating lifeless through space and the Discovery crew encounter her alive somewhere in the future.

 

I think Tyler in the end was just a confusing character to understand. Mostly because they never made it clear as to what he is, especially with that weird idea of mixing body parts together or something. I mean it would be more easy if they just said Voq's memories were downloaded in a captured human and I think people would get that concept. Still I think he also kind of limited as a actor so it might have been moot anyways.

I actually bye Burnham and TIly being in a romance more and maybe go that route. Saru can be the best friend. Makes kind of sense. Lover in Tilly,Friend in Saru, brother in Stamets, mother figure in Gergiou , father figure in Sarek and authority figure in Lorca who should have not been turned into a villain.

Jason

 

I think the "bone crushing" part was just to add a little gore to the thing. Plus Tyler's PTSD was very well played and totally believable.

 

I agree it was. My main gripe about it was how abruptly he shrugged the whole thing off in Season 2. He still had brief bouts of a conflict of identity whenever he was around L'Rell, but for the rest of the season, he was, for all intents and purposes, Section 31 agent Ash Tyler and that was all there was to his character.