Whereas I saw it as a hint that the Kahless seen in TNG could have been the original after all through their wibbly wobbly timey wimey magic.
Why the hate for Disco?
- Thread starter David Hanley
- Start date
- Status
Cuz it sucks.
Then why didn't the monks just say so if that were the case? But they said Kahless was cloned in a lab, and I see no reason why they would make that up if he were indeed the real deal who arrived by time travel. And if Boreth being a time vortex is something all Chancellors know (that's how L'Rell knew), why didn't Gowron ever bring it up?
While my earlier point stands that TNG Kahless was said to be a clone and the monks have no reason to lie about this, it did occur to me that all the "proof" that he wasn't genuine may not have been what it seemed. Gowron made a fair point that Kahless seemed to be missing a lot of memories and that's the best evidence that he's a clone, but Gowron's "smoking gun" so to speak was that he defeated Kahless in combat, whereas he feels the true Kahless wouldn't be beaten so easily.
However, even if Kahless did time travel to the future, would he really be unbeatable? Assuming the Klingons have been continuously updating their training regimens, diet, fighting techniques, etc. since Kahless' time, Kahless would be hopelessly obsolete in modern fighting techniques. What I'm saying is even if the real Kahless time traveled to the 24th century and lost a fight to Gowron, this wouldn't necessarily be hard proof he's not genuine.
However, even if Kahless did time travel to the future, would he really be unbeatable? Assuming the Klingons have been continuously updating their training regimens, diet, fighting techniques, etc. since Kahless' time, Kahless would be hopelessly obsolete in modern fighting techniques. What I'm saying is even if the real Kahless time traveled to the 24th century and lost a fight to Gowron, this wouldn't necessarily be hard proof he's not genuine.
No, it doesn't.
There, short sweet and to the point. I like the conversation like that.
They may have become more sequested over the years, or the Temporal Wars necessitated them becoming more secretive.
The television industry has different priorities these days than it did back in the pre-2000 days. Back then, TV shows had to fill 20+ episode seasons with the goal of achieving a syndication package, and the resulted in frequent standalone episodes like that. These days, TV shows can get away with having seasons of less than twenty episodes, sometimes even less than ten with a greater emphasis on story arcs. Many modern TV seasons are essentially ten hour movies. Just the way the world has changed.
The YouTube Comments section is back that way. You must be lost. Tell Doomcock I said "hi".
Agreed. Ironically tv was supposed to be where ensemble casts shine, due to their running time. But now that they've basically become like season long movies, the prominence of Burnham is no different than, say, how the TNG movies became the Picard and Data show.
There is a difference between a 2 hour Movie and a 10 (10 hour)part serialised TV season. In the later you have much more scope to focus on more than 1 or 2 characters given the longer runtime, viewers will be drawn to different characters and take an aversion to others. For example I'm not overly fond of Burnham in DSC at times I think the writers are trying to force "how great" this character is.
Also in the case of the TNG movies we had 178 episodes (~135 hours) of runtime where we got to now the other characters, not to mention one of the criticisms of VOY was that it focused too much on 3 characters esp. in the later seasons.
Now that I think of it, I’m not sure I’ve ever really loved a “10-hour movie” season. The serialized shows I’ve genuinely loved, like Mad Men, weren’t that compartmentalized.
Twin Peaks: The Return probably comes closest, but that’s more of a multi-hour sensory experience than a true arc-dominant season with a tidy resolution.
It's a whole century later, maybe Gowron didn't know? Or doubted the stories he'd heard? A lot can change with a change in power, let along the dozens in the interim.
Indeed, yes, and I think Star Trek has embraced that fully. That might change and invite more variety with Strange New Worlds or Prodigy. But, I have enjoyed the simple idea that this is a film all connected together. It started with Daredevil for me and has been enjoy thus far.
I think the prominence of Burnham is very different. With both Picard and Data, there's at least a clear understanding of why they became the most popular out of TNG's ensemble cast. Burnham is the least essential crewmember from a "traditional" standpoint, she literally serves no function on the ship. She's the main character because Fuller wanted a non-traditional Trek show (hey, I approve), but he got fired. Nobody still involved with the show knows what to do with her.
To be fair Stamets, Culber and Tilly all present similar problems. But every season Burnham is inexplicably Destiny's Child, even though the reasons for it will be completely different from last season. This is a fundamental flaw of her character, that we still don't even know what she does, yet every season they have to come up with a new reason why she's Destiny's Child.
But everything's not about her; STD in general suffers from lack of a coherent premise. After three seasons the Wikipedia intro reads "It begins a decade before [TOS] and follows the crew of the USS Discovery." That's as close to a coherent tagline as this show is ever going to get.
I mean, it seems pretty clear she is on a voyage of self-discovery. Whether or not that makes for enjoyment will depend on the person and their understanding of the character. But, yeah, with Fuller leaving there was definitely an unevenness to how Burnham unfolded. I think they tackled her guilt over Georgiou in a far different direction than I would have done.
But, all of these characters are basically going through a measure of trauma and healing and discovery.
But, all of these characters are basically going through a measure of trauma and healing and discovery.
I think the look in relation to TMP (and post ENT) works. I actually like it. (We have the ‘TOS as adaptation’ line from Roddenberry in the TMP novel to help with that to some extent. It should help with other aspects, but doesn’t.) The bigger mis-steps, as made obvious by them trying to wrestle things like Klingon design in general back into place, are harder to ignore; but again, I have tried to run with it as a viewer and extant fan. But... I wandered off in season two, and am finding hard to care to watch more. I know that it lifted ‘Control’ from the novels, and it’s such an anti-ethical to Trek idea that I don’t know if I can put myself through it in live action. S31 has been abused and raised to protagonist status, completing missing the point of what it was introduced as... hint: not as something to be admired. Picard (which admittedly is not DSC) screwed the landing so hard it’s probably walking funny, AND took us into a Trek universe that looks more like B5 (which is *not* a good thing. The differences between Trek and B5 are one of the things that made them both good things) and in season 3 of DSC we are getting both a rehash of the known ‘reboot’ ideas that were floating around (Which is why PIC and DSC both seem to have some of Tim Russ’s Renegades in there) and, of all things, ‘Gene Roddenberry’s Andromeda’. So much is taken from things that were ‘Trek with the serial numbers filed off’ (right down to Dark Matter and it’s blink drive, which was a show that like B5 had its ‘mutated Trek DNA’ on show) that in many ways DSC in particular starts to feel like the Trek equivalent of Harry Potter and The Cursed Child.
I keep coming back, and I keep trying, and I credit the production team for trying to fix all the problems I said the show would have waaaaay back at the beginning. (Mostly symptoms of prequelitis) I give them a lot of credit for really trying to get the ‘canon’ stuff back on track, because ‘canon’ has been something Trek has been trading on since at least 1982, if not TAS.
The thing I give them most credit for is that ‘this looks like TMP and TWOK are ten, twenty years down the line’ production design. I even kind of don’t hate the Enterprise redesign (apart from the effing window viewscreen) and can try to handwave the silly hologram communications. (TNG was subtler and better with that stuff in its season one extravagances. Especially the 3D effect on the viewscreen.) Problem is, most of its characters make it very hard for to care, and every now and then it just *completely* throws any built up goodwill away. It seems *clumsier* about allegory and ‘issues’ than any series since TOS, like it doesn’t realise ‘hey, we’re an SF show, we don’t have to be literal about things, we can have our cake and eat it too.’
One thing that always sticks in my mind is the war crimes of the pilot. It’s never quite managed to make me think of that as a bad ‘edgy’ writing blip, instead, it’s too much like a harbinger for how much they don’t really have a grasp on the material, or even really the audience.
Sorry, given the inclusion of Bond I assumed you meant movies. For reboots in comics do you mean just relaunches of titles or changes of creative teams, which happen to team books as well, or full blown "Crisis on Infinite Earths" style reboots, which effect the whole universe including team books. Superman and Batman not being from the 30s is not different (except for the eventual breaking off of Golden Age tribute versions onto Earth 2) than Spider-Man not being around since the 60s, or Mister Fantastic no longer serving in Viertnam: that's just the nature of the sliding timeline.
Because she stands up for love? Because she's an independent woman? Because she's bootilicious? Because she's a brown eyed soldier with bills, bills, bills?
I am new here, just out of interest what were the tag lines of the other series?
In S4 she will in all likelihood be sat in the captain's chair. Which I presume means she will now be allowed to be that independent woman?
I personally liked that we saw how she got there. The back story of the mutiny, the red suit, the jump to the future and then taking her seat in the chair. We see how she earned it. I have spent far too long on another thread talking about how flawless and presumptiously high minded Picard and Janeway are....and yet when we see flaws and some back story to a captain it is also criticised. Her story is not how I would have done it, but I feel for the writers, they can't keep everyone happy.
It's a funny old show is Discovery. I broadly liked Season 1, especially as it got going and by the end of it I thought I had sort of a handle on what it was all going to be about. Then Season 2 sort of redefined everything a bit and it became a different kind of show, but still towards the end of the Season I thought I had a grip on it, then they threw everything into the future... So again, we have Season 3 being quite different to the ones that preceded it and now apparently it's going to settle down in the 32nd century for Season 4...
I do have my issues with it, though they come down to aesthetics rather than the characters. I think the characters are fine and I like Michael... I just can't help thinking they would have been better doing it in the 32nd century in the first place, thus avoiding a great deal of fandom's 'canon' ire.
I'll say one thing about it. It's not a boring show. Whether by accident or design it's possibly the most varied of all the Trek shows on a season to season basis.
I do have my issues with it, though they come down to aesthetics rather than the characters. I think the characters are fine and I like Michael... I just can't help thinking they would have been better doing it in the 32nd century in the first place, thus avoiding a great deal of fandom's 'canon' ire.
I'll say one thing about it. It's not a boring show. Whether by accident or design it's possibly the most varied of all the Trek shows on a season to season basis.
Ok...and "Tagline for Star Trek: The Next Generation:" It takes place 70 years after TOS and follows the crew of the USS Enterprise-D
Cmon man, that is a gross simplification of the premise, and you know it.
Each season (for better or worse) is almost a completely different premise. Yes, certain characters and threads carry over, but each season attempts to be it's own, mostly-isolated, arc. That's part of the series format. DSC certainly has it's ups and downs, but let's not resort to gross over-simplification of issues to try and stake out a strong position.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
