Why the soft reboot?

[Lord Garth]

I'll play the DS9 card here. Watched it twice through before. Doing so again, and it's been years, so I remember very little.

It's really about Bajor and Sisko and the prophets. Bajor is not in danger of being exploded or tentacle-monstered. But I really don't know what's going to develop with it. Ok, the pah wraiths (evil) have to be defeated -- no drama there, but they're not THE MAIN PLOT as the movies and CBS trek (and other franchises) really stress. The Dominion War is relegated to the background. I know they won't win, but a reshuffled Alpha is certainly a possibility. Ad to this the fact that (I do remember this much) -- the end is cryptic and you're left wondering still. (What/who the heck are those prophets, and when will - if?- the Sisko return? Poor Jake.)

I watched DS9 when it was on, then on DVD in the '00s, and have only watched a scant few episodes since. So it's been over a decade since I've seen 95-99% of the series.

When it was airing: even during the tensest moments of the Dominion War, I knew nothing serious would happen to the Federation. If for no other reason than if they seriously messed up the Federation, then it would effect the TNG Movies and VOY too. General audiences who watched the TNG Movies but didn't watch DS9 would be wondering "What the fuck happened?!" And Voyager needed a home to get back to. If they communicated with the Alpha Quadrant and found out the Federation fell, that's a whole can of worms that would've run counter to the VOY creative team's approach which was "Any Average Joe slob with a six-pack of beer can watch any episode any time and not have to worry about what happened in any other episode!" So nothing that was going to change the status quo permanently would've happened on DS9 as long as it had to share with TNG and VOY.

What I cared about when watching DS9 was wondering about what would happen to the characters. It's the same thing I wondered about when watching the first two seasons of DSC. I connected with those characters, so I wondered about what would happen to them.

Now, in the third season, I can wonder about what will happen and I can also wonder about the status quo of the entire galaxy. Because unlike in the '90s with DS9 and the 24th Century, the third season of DSC doesn't have to share the 32nd Century with any other series.

DSC will have more creative freedom now than any other Star Trek series since TNG in 1987. Because now they're building a new era from scratch and they don't have to tie it into anything else. I still would've missed the 23rd Century but that won't be an issue anymore, thanks to SNW.

 

[eschaton]

I mean, not everything. Their language, how they talk, their lore and how the act is still mostly the same, well compared to DS9/TNG anyways.

I'd partially disagree here. The Klingon language is pretty much the same, but the cadence of their voices was very different. In Berman Trek every time a Klingon talked in Klingon he or she was SHOUTING! Not so in Discovery.

Also, they weren't really shown as being an honor-obsessed warrior race. Some might argue it was a good thing, but honestly I liked the element of TNG/DS9 how even the 'bad" Klingons were obsessed with the public appearance of being honorable. DIS Klingons seemed to be somewhat more sneaky and underhanded, but really on the whole I couldn't really identify anything memorable which defined them other than being "the bad guys." They had a value system which was incompatible with the Federation because...reasons. Reasons that L'Rell never actually managed to articulate properly.

 

[fireproof78]

The Federation is weak.

Berman Klingons were Ok, if one note. They fit nicely with my TUC Klingons and my DISCO Klingons.

 

[Lord Garth]

In Berman Trek every time a Klingon talked in Klingon he or she was SHOUTING! Not so in Discovery.

Also, they weren't really shown as being an honor-obsessed warrior race.

The Klingons were metaphorically neutered after the destruction of Praxis. The Empire was never the same after that. So the obsession with honor, the shouting, and forbidding women to serve on the High Council was overcompensating. Given what I've seen IRL over the last 5-10 years, this makes a ton more sense now than it would've in the past.

There's no other way to say it than to say it.

 

[plynch]

I watched DS9 . . .

When it was airing: even during the tensest moments of the Dominion War, I knew nothing serious would happen to the Federation. . . .SNW.

Agree, but that war is always a backdrop, not thrown at us so much as THE PLOT as it seems new Trek makes their plots. DS9 was about Bajor and Sisko and those damn prophets. With that, I would still say the Alpha Quad could have been permanently reshuffled somewhat from the war - there were some plausible stakes that could have gone wrong. As I watch I'm actually caring about the fate of Cardassia -- I really don't know how that's gonna turn out, and I'm really enjoying Damar becoming more of a character. Nice.

But in DS9's defense, they haven't screamed at us that the destruction of earth/ALL LIFE is imminent. It's implied earth could be lost, but other losses have actually occurred.

Titanic's a good example where you know the main plot. It was still huge spectacle, and about Rose and Jack.

But - what about a movie set on a space liner with a lot of hubris in the design; lots of foreshadowing that the asteroid field is pretty dangerous; plus a few character stories too (written so we care about them). But unlike the Titanic we really don't know if the ship will blow up, be damaged, or survive unscathed thanks to Lt. Shmoop who disobeys orders at great personal risk. So you'd have main plot that has actual suspense/drama AND character drama. I'd take both, please.

And that's what we lose when the stakes are death of the hero ship, death of the lead (oh wait, he's back as a golem - or resuscitated with red blood - or back as B4 - or whatever), death of earth, or ALL LIFE: the writers/producers just took a big piece of fun off the table. Cuz now the main plot . . . isn't really a plot, it's just a setting for character development. Which is fine. But I'd prefer both.

I think I erased a post where I talked about Breaking Bad. There was the fall of Walter and all those around him. And large plots about drug dealing and vengeance. I knew how none of it was going to turn out. In fact, I think the writers let him off easy, but whatever. It wasn't foreordained, thus it was riveting.

TL;DR: Smaller-scale plots are not foreordained thus can be actually interesting, in addition to the character stories.

 

[fireproof78]

Larger scale plots are also interesting. Execution and engagement with characters is tantamount to any stakes. Despite my mockery of the Titanic it was quite a riveting tale of the characters, and watching the tragedy unfold.

Regardless, I have never labored under the illusion since I was 13 that Earth would be destroyed, the main characters would fail or whatnot. Kirk always wins, the day is saved, and life as we know it continues.

 

[eschaton]

IMHO large-scale plots only work well when you have a large cast of characters and multiple settings across a universe. It's one of the reason why Season 1 of Discovery was kind of flawed. They wanted to tell this big epic story of the Klingon War, and there were only four Klingons we ever saw that had a role above the level of extra, and we seldom even got off of Discovery. I think a lot of this was due to budget limitations after they shot their wad with the opening two-parter, but still the stakes didn't really fit the story as it was portrayed onscreen. It would have been much better to "de-epic" as I suggested if we were really settling into a claustrophobic season which mostly took place on a single ship.

More broadly, there's a reason why war movies which focus on a grunt on the front lines are usually way more popular than movies which focus on the generals plotting in the war room. War at "maximum zoom out" just does not make for good drama.

 

[fireproof78]

Perhaps...not convinced of that, but I do agree it would have been nice to see more of the Klingon war and do the Mirror Universe in another season.

 

[dupersuper]

I agree. I also think they want to explain why Spock never mentioned having a sister

Meh; it's not like Spocks fiance or half brother were classified, and he never mentioned them before they popped up.

 

[Noname Given]

Thank you for the secret. I will tell no one.

Can I tell you a secret using the same snarky tone you used? How nice.

(Preface)
I don't care how made-up beings solve some made-up problem. That way lies technobabble. Or Riker or Saru's sister appearing with a fleet at the last minute. (Or "the resistance" in SW9!)

2. My secret is this: it is actually possible to have both character development AND a plot of which you really don't know the resolution in advance.

Bad: Evil [x] will destroy Earth or all life in [federation/galaxy/multiverse].

Good: Something we are led to care about is in jeopardy and we really don't know if, or how well, things will turn out in the end.

I'll play the DS9 card here. Watched it twice through before. Doing so again, and it's been years, so I remember very little.

It's really about Bajor and Sisko and the prophets. Bajor is not in danger of being exploded or tentacle-monstered. But I really don't know what's going to develop with it. Ok, the pah wraiths (evil) have to be defeated -- no drama there, but they're not THE MAIN PLOT as the movies and CBS trek (and other franchises) really stress. The Dominion War is relegated to the background. I know they won't win, but a reshuffled Alpha is certainly a possibility. Ad to this the fact that (I do remember this much) -- the end is cryptic and you're left wondering still. (What/who the heck are those prophets, and when will - if?- the Sisko return? Poor Jake.)

There are plenty of episodic Treks where some planet or society or even an individual has a problem and you really don't know how it's gonna go. And it doesn't always go well. "Private Little War" comes to mind in TOS.

As opposed to: if the main plot is destruction of THE UNIVERSE or EARTH, just why even have that as a plot? To provide characters a chance to relate, I know. But you could have both -- character moments and a plot that is not foreordained.

I think this is why I liked SW ep 8 over 9. 8 was way more interesting. Had really no idea where it was going. 9 -- once it got rolling: HMM -- I BET Rey defeats the Emperor. Zzzzz.

I overmake my point.

Yes, I know that you knew the universe wasn't gonna get smucked. My question is why not have BOTH character moments (and don't get me started on the MANY rushed and missed character moments in PIC) . . . and a non-preordained plot?

Remember: this is my secret. Shhh.

You must be bored to tears by:

- Any U.S. or British made film about anything in WWI or WWII...
- Any U.S. film set in the Soviet U.S. Cold War era...

And I don't seriously believe you can watch ANY episodic TV series thinking each and every episode COULD be the finale whenever it shows a character in danger...

Sorry, but your whole premise is flawed. Most viewers go in REALIZING yes, the Heroes will encounter things, but will ultimately succeed. They're not watching thinking "Will the Heroes live..." because they know they will. They're watching for the "what things will they go through and how will they ultimately solve everything..."

 

[jaime]

You must be bored to tears by:

- Any U.S. or British made film about anything in WWI or WWII...
- Any U.S. film set in the Soviet U.S. Cold War era...

And I don't seriously believe you can watch ANY episodic TV series thinking each and every episode COULD be the finale whenever it shows a character in danger...

Sorry, but your whole premise is flawed. Most viewers go in REALIZING yes, the Heroes will encounter things, but will ultimately succeed. They're not watching thinking "Will the Heroes live..." because they know they will. They're watching for the "what things will they go through and how will they ultimately solve everything..."

That’s something you have to almost consciously turn off though isn’t it? It’s not something that should be baked in by the storyteller from the beginning is the point. It’s why if you really want to be able to anywhere and do anything in a story you shouldn’t play with an existing continuity and certainly not as a prequel. To go back to the Titanic example, they didn’t follow it up with a prequel about Jacks days drawing French Prostitutes with one leg. (Though frankly, that probably would have done pretty well at the time. I would have watched it.) War films are rarely about the whole war in the way, to an extent, Star Wars is. They are about getting Ryan home, or making sure those guns in Navarone are blown up. At no point does anyone sit and say ‘the whole war depends on this one moment’ with anything approaching seriousness in historical fiction, because a chunk of the audience is going to laugh them out of the room.

Suspension of disbelief. Simple as. You can’t guarantee the audience will switch their logic centres off, you have to make them want to do so.

 

[BillJ]

Culber dead! What the heck? Neck broke like a Number 2 pencil! Never mind. He walked it off.

Then they start talking almost immediately about how he's coming back. Sabotaging their own drama for a minor character. I wouldn't be surprised if they are already working on how to get Cornwell and Airiam to come back from the grave.

 

[fireproof78]

Suspension of disbelief. Simple as. You can’t guarantee the audience will switch their logic centres off, you have to make them want to do so.

I'm watching a fictional story-I want to do so.

 

[NCC-73515]

Culber dead! What the heck? Neck broke like a Number 2 pencil! Never mind. He walked it off.

Then they start talking almost immediately about how he's coming back. Sabotaging their own drama for a minor character. I wouldn't be surprised if they are already working on how to get Cornwell and Airiam to come back from the grave.

I think that after writing and filming it, they realized that killing the gay guy might stir up trouble, so they immediately told people that he'll be back in some form.
I'd like to see Cornwell again, but don't care about Airiam.

 

[jaime]

I'm watching a fictional story-I want to do so.

Then the job is to make sure they don’t get yanked out of that mindset. It’s a thing. Everyone has their bullshitometre. For some it’s magic blood, others will buy that but not a motorbike in a spaceship. For example.

 

[jaime]

Culber dead! What the heck? Neck broke like a Number 2 pencil! Never mind. He walked it off.

Then they start talking almost immediately about how he's coming back. Sabotaging their own drama for a minor character. I wouldn't be surprised if they are already working on how to get Cornwell and Airiam to come back from the grave.

He was literally one of the only people whose sole function wasn’t to exist as Burnham Adjunct of Tertiary six. And boom.

 

[BillJ]

For some it’s magic blood, others will buy that but not a motorbike in a spaceship.

I bought both.

What I didn't buy was that Starfleet would build a safety device that required someone to stay behind to die in order to use it.

 

[fireproof78]

Then the job is to make sure they don’t get yanked out of that mindset. It’s a thing. Everyone has their bullshitometre. For some it’s magic blood, others will buy that but not a motorbike in a spaceship. For example.

I bought both.

Same. My bullshitometre must be broken.

 

[BillJ]

Same. My bullshitometre must be broken.

I amended my post...

What I didn't buy was that Starfleet would build a safety device that required someone to stay behind and die in order to use it.

 

[fireproof78]

I amended my post...

What!? Immediate dislike...

oh, wait. I have no idea which macguffin that was.