Why the hate for Disco?

I already explained all the actions I took in my post. Once the defamatory content was removed, we felt the situation was resolved, and my lawyer and I both believed the mod's lie that the ban was for 48 hours.

After 48 hours, I realized the mod lied to deceive my lawyer that he was no longer needed, and they were then using the ban as an attempt to extort a confession that I really was sexist afterwards, but the only solution was to just run as far away as I could from this forum that really started feeling like a cult at this point (and legally, I think a forum can ban anyone for any reason they want to, even if they don't like the color of your hair or something).

The only legal claim I had was the defamatory post content declaring that I was a sexist, and they pulled that without telling me once they realized my lawyer was investigating the forum and going to send them a letter and we were taking this very, very seriously.

So the defamatory content was ultimately removed, and that's all that matters. But I'm not getting my legal fees back. The whole situation still makes me feel sick thinking about it. If you look at wookieepedia, https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Jedi_Council_Forums , theforce net Jedi Council Forums has a history of conflict that have driven out authors like Karen Traviss and Troy Denning. I should have realized that and left long before they did this to me.

 

I'd say Kira and 7...and maybe B'elanna. I remember liking B'elanna episodes for the most part.

 

That sounds a lot like what probably happened. I can easily believe it.

Unfortunately if true, it shows that high quality storytelling is just not the first priority for Kurtzman or the CBS people. Any writers' room under them, no matter who heads it, may be doomed.

 

Bastards. I really can't stand seeing people like that win.

 

Berg and harberts were removed because bullying behaviour towards other writers. Kurtzman clearly just didn't want them to have writing credits given the reason for their firing

 

Yeah, Haberts and Berg were literally beating people up in the writer's room. Does anyone really think Kurtzman should have tolerated that in favor of "quality storytelling"?

 

About the only better alternative they could have maybe done is take a longer break before beginning filming again, because another month for the writers to hash things out could only have helped. If they really tore almost everything up they must have literally been finishing scripts with only weeks to days to spare - which would have led to the equivalent of "rough drafts" being filmed.

As an aside, I am pretty convinced that adding Ethan Peck as Spock only came about after they were fired. Harberts said something along the lines of us never seeing adult Spock on camera - only Spock as a child - prior to the season. I realize the first episode had a voiceover from him, but this could have easily been added in post after they decided to pivot the season away from Berg/Harberts planned arc.

 

I imagine they were probably under pressure from CBS to avoid that given all the delays and postponements season 1 suffered due to its behind the scenes horseshit.

Definitely. Everyone was saying early on that Spock would only be in the season as a child, even Jonathan Frakes, and he's a guy who leaks spoilers like a sieve. Certainly the fact Ethan Peck's casting was announced so late in the game would seem to support this idea.

 

I should note that while I thought Season 2 fell apart after Project Daedalus, Such Sweet Sorrow Part 2 was a much better season finale than Will You Take My Hand? The season arc still didn't make much sense and had big holes, but at least the season ended on a somewhat higher note rather than the wet fart of an ending which involved Michael staring down MU Georgiou in a small room with a well in it.

 

"Clearly"? Has it been established this is what happened?

I know why they were fired. I don't care who Kurtzman/CBS felt justified in screwing out of a screen credit. You don't throw away your only roadmap to a story you already have in progress.

STD should have been canceled after that. A struggling sci-fi series without the Star Trek banner protecting it that sabotaged itself so spectacularly in its 2nd season? Would have been canceled.

I'm sorry, but that seems like a rhetorical strawman argument. It's already conjectured they did what they did after firing the bastards. Nobody has suggested they should have been kept on.

"Literally"? They got physical and punched people out in the writer's room? Anyway, they were already gone. Don't assume that you, Kurtzman, have the talent to re-write their work from the middle on out, no matter how much time you give yourselves. We already kind of know you don't.

 

So, fail to produce a product, not keeping up your contract? Sounds like sound business decision making right there.

 

There aren't that many B'elanna episodes specifically. I remember the one with the barge of the dead... awful.

 

I'm sorry... I can't tell whether that's in reply to my last post or not. I assume it was.

Nobody's suggested nor implied they should have... (what?)... walked away and stopped producing altogether after they fired Berg and Harberts?

And nobody's suggested they should have kept Berg and Harberts on.

Did they have an outline or didn't they? It's speculated here that they threw away whatever B&H left them because they didn't want to continue giving credit to the bozos.

They broke their already-limping show. And they're still acting like they can fix it.

A non-ST science fiction show would have gotten canceled after a 2nd season that was cobbled together like that.

 

So, they shouldn't walk but they should also cancel it, failing to produce the product promised? I'm doing my best (and perhaps failing) but I feel like there is a contradiction in the expectations here.

Also, Discovery was broken after Battle of Binary Stars and Fuller blowing the money on two episodes. Yet Discovery continues. How dare it? Doesn't it know its supposed to be dead?!

 

I'm not sure anyone disputes that. But for CBS the calculation was pretty simple:

• If it didn't develop its own streaming platform, it was destined to just become a content studio for someone else like Netflix, having no control over the distribution
• In order to develop CBS All Access into a competitive service, it needed exclusive content.
• Star Trek was CBS's best legacy brand.
• No other Trek shows were far enough along in production at that time to take up the mantle.

Given all of this, failure wasn't an option for Discovery, either after Fuller was fired before the first season really got underway, or after Berg and Harberts were fired a third of the way through the second season. Discovery had to shuffle along as a "zombie show" without a coherent thematic core.

This is also why I think Discovery is in far more danger now - even though it's a much more polished show. CBS has lots of other Trek content coming down the pike, and could easily "retire" Discovery to make room for other shows if it doesn't prove as popular as Picard or Strange New Worlds.

 

Indeed, yes. For my love of Discovery the core is largely "Michael's Journey of Self-Discovery" (pun intended). Now, for my money, totally worth it. As a Star Trek show that people keep insisting must be a particular format it is lacking. If Season 4 doesn't do well then I see it being retired. Sad but true, in this instance. Fuller squandered so much potential. But, that's the legacy of Star Trek.

 

Yes

 

I'm going to need more.

Your misunderstanding seems intentional from where I'm sitting. I never said they should have stopped producing it. You're going to have to show me where I said that, because I didn't say it. You don't stop until they fire or cancel you.

Any sci-fi series without the protective words "Star" and "Trek" would have been canceled after producing content comparible to STD's, particularly after STD's 2nd season. By that reasoning, STD deserved to be canceled.

I never said they should have stopped producing it while CBS (and Netwflix, and whoever else) was still paying for it. As for "how dare it", you just acknowledged to Eschaton that you see it being canceled if it doesn't improve.

And how it's supposed to improve given its status as a "zombie show" (very good description for it) I really don't know.

That's been my impression as well, that they were basically keeping it alive until STP established an audience. And yet I've been gaslit for saying that elsewhere, as if I'd been lapping up whatever Midnight's Edge and some of the other Youtube bozos are serving.

 

I mean, Season 3 was a big step up in some ways. Much better scripting and characterization, more of an ensemble focus, and an arc which - while a bit underwhelming - actually played out to its conclusion.

The problem is after 10,000 fan freakouts about "not canon" they went into the far future and played it ultra-safe, giving us barely-changed tech, the same races we're used to seeing, and plots which we have seen before elsewhere. So it felt like Voyager's 8th season.

Often in Trek episodes, you will see one writer gets the "story credit" - comes up with the ideas behind the episode - while the other writes the script. For the most part for the third season the story ideas were completely uncreative, but the actual dialogue along the way was well done.

If they can actually come up with some decent story ideas for Season 4, I think there's a shot of Discovery turning into something more satisfying.

 

If you think it is intentional then I see no reason to continue, though not my intent to misunderstand. Apologies for any misunderstanding.

Discovery is doing what it thinks fans want-original style Star Trek box story making. The main character is now the captain, and they go off to explore strange new worlds. That they had to go so far in to the future to avoid canon concerns shows how safe they want to play it. But, the plus side is, maybe they won't be terrified of their own shadow now.