Last edited:
Why the hate for Disco?
- Thread starter David Hanley
- Start date
- Status
Ah, the killer of ENT. 
In a decade people will gripe about the new show and about how it defaces the canon established by Discovery...
I'm sorry too for my half of... whatever that was.If you think it is intentional then I see no reason to continue, though not my intent to misunderstand. Apologies for any misunderstanding.
I'm fine with abandoning that track.So you've both fairly summed up the problems STD is having. I think if not for STP's S1 issues I could probably leave it at that. We could just be one more AA/P+ credit card signup from finally getting a solid season of Kurtzman Trek, it's just the batting average so far that suggests otherwise.
Re playing it safe, I think that's been one of my biggest problems with these people. I would prefer they kept the non-traditional aspect of having a main character not be the highest-ranking regular. But they fired the guy who knew how that was supposed to work with Burnham. I actually think S1 was the strongest up until the MU reveal of Lorca broke that season. Nothing after that made any sense; I don't think you could say either of the first two seasons had coherent themes/subtext to their entirety.
The jump to 32nd(?) century I think was also a huge mistake. You already had Fullers' own Federation premise for that, as well as any other far- future ST concepts that have been pitched over the years. Now that's taken. And instead of really exploring the idea of the Federation naturally eroding over time, doing a ST-style take on the Foundation series or something like that, they concocted this ridiculous technobabble plot and wasted it. In a way that's very ST, but I'm forced to agree about it being completely uncreative.
They need to stop worry what the fans think, including backpedaling on everything that fans responded negatively to. Fans have no idea what they want. Most of us have seen too much ST to think outside the box.
But then they need to show they can stick the landing on one of their stories. Some months ago Goldsman talked about STP-S2, and he brought up actually finishing your story (I assume in outline, treatment or grand synopsis form) before you've started filming it... as if this were a novel idea. So I don't know...
I'm not sure if the Federation being destroyed over time can really be done right on a Starfleet/military focused show. It would have to encompass the entire goverment, Federation Council, President, etc. and these are elements that are not featured heavily in any incarnation of Star Trek. The closest maybe was the Homefront episode of Deep Space 9.
Furthermore, despite the criticism by the general public of those movies, I personally think the other Star franchise did a pretty good job of how an interstellar democracy can completely collapse. I'm not sure how Trek can substantially add to that without looking like a retread of the Star Wars prequels/Clone Wars tv show.
I think the above reasons, especially the fact that even Discovery is a Starfleet/military based show, contributed to the Federation's collapse being an external threat rather than a subtle gradual erosion of democracy (the latter of which is actually more relevant to current events to be honest).
I think Fuller needed a balancing act. He was outside the box and that was good but he was terrible with money and blew it all. So, sadly those ideas got left by the wayside. However, I do think Season 1 did well enough, while Season 2 was more disappointing but held up by Pike and Michael. Season 3 was less interesting to me.
I tend to agree that a broader theme that undergirds the season is hard to suss out but again I'm less concerned with that so long as I have characters to engage with. But, moving Michael to captain is taking away that non-traditional facet that really drew me in so regardless of what Season 4 does part of it is not quite as interesting.
I'm sure someone could make an even more disjointed or directionless version of ST, but I'd really kind of hope not to see it.
STD is already practically an alternate universe... not unlike TOS/TAS when you hold them up next to everything else. And much of Berman Trek bores me with its stylistic sameness, so in my mind these folks already have a license to bend things. You can redesign the hardware and prosthetics all you want (it's retroactive anyway). Letting Sarek/SF act like they're ok with genocide I think is bending things too far if you're claiming to be in continuity.
I think what I would hold against Season 1 is not showing the terrible cost of the Klingon War to get them to that point. I love the MU but that Klingon Wars was a missed opportunity, in my opinion. Sarek is probably one of the best aspects, aside from Michael and Lorca.
Except Starfleet has been perfectly fine with wiping out planetary populations in Trek, like how Worf's stepbrother saved a planetary population on the holodeck because Picard refused to save them out of an extreme interpretation of the Prime Directive.
As for Sarek, his Discovery incarnation is the earliest we've seen in his timeline. Obviously by TOS/TNG he wouldn't be ok with wiping out the Klingons. But we really don't know what he was like before that, and it seems when he was younger he would be ok with wiping out Klingons in the face of a devastating war.
Well I think you just start your new story in a post-Federation setting, similar to STD-S3 if you want. What the heck happened, and whether the galaxy even needs Federation anymore, can be explored over the 3/5/7-year run of the series.
But if you do a far-future series and the Federation's more advanced/prosperous then ever, I think that shows a boring lack of imagination unless the focus were to show why that's actually a problem.
Sarek was very anti-Starfleet and barely talked to his own son for decades. You would have to go much deeper in developing the Klingon war to realistically bend on that one.
And the Prime Directive is, one of the most self-aggrandized exercises in mental masturbation on the part of Roddenbery's (and Berman's) 2.0 Trek. The Kurtzman folks would do very well to completely re-think it.
If I were making a ST series I would regard it as a TNG-style reboot (if you figure that TNG was a reboot, regardless of claiming to be in continuity), and I would just retcon the Prime Directive to be wholly humanitarian. Don't use it to argue hypothetical what-ifs, you just do what's best for a people after a lot of careful discussion.
It's been my impression that CBS just didn't understand how much money they'd have to float for a science fiction series. And maybe Fuller was partly to blame as well, but I think he takes too much flack as the one who's not there (and who pissed fans off by updating their Klingons -- I always hear Klingons mentioned first whenever I want to un-nail him from the cross).
And yeah, I don't think STD's ever going to realize its full potential as a non-traditional Trek; that juncture has already passed. But serialized programs in general would do well to have strong themes and to function as lengthened novels/movies for TV. And ST has too long seemed content to be safe while shows like B5, Farscape, BSG and Expanse out-Trekked it.
While this article is about TNG, I think it sheds light on complaints that Discovery is the Burnham show when past Trek had an ensemble feel. Apparently that shows should focus on the captain or main character was directly from Roddenberry as of TNG, and Ron Moore claims he fought to focus on characters like Worf: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/t...generation-ron-moore-worf-episode-1234969742/
“I remember that Gene was not fully on board with the idea,” Moore tells The Hollywood Reporter. “He didn’t really see Worf as a primary character. [TNG] was about Picard. He was the Captain. This was the first time that Next Gen — that Star Trek, really — had ever done a big war story like this. And this was going to be the series’ 100th episode on top of it. So, we had to fight somewhat to get the episode going.”
“I remember that Gene was not fully on board with the idea,” Moore tells The Hollywood Reporter. “He didn’t really see Worf as a primary character. [TNG] was about Picard. He was the Captain. This was the first time that Next Gen — that Star Trek, really — had ever done a big war story like this. And this was going to be the series’ 100th episode on top of it. So, we had to fight somewhat to get the episode going.”
I mean, I think it was a combination of factors, both the money as well as Fuller's apparent interest in reimaging a lot of touchstones. I think CBS struggled with what it would cost, but I would say that Fuller's interest in the dramatic redesign didn't help them either. And then he was gone which left this expensive production needing to be continued or loose a lot of money.
Discovery could have been more but I'll never blame CBS for continuing forward with it. I'd rather them try than just can it.
Fans don't appear to want them to do anything else. And, yes, that is me painting with a broad brush but I've been observing fandom for a bit now, especially with online behavior, and the ability to flex with new productions is limited, to put it mildly. I don't think Farscape out-Trekked it. Farscape had a theme from the beginning of being weird as possible and then moved in to a war theme. SG-1 was far more the serialized Trek flavor than other shows. Farscape not so much. I have little care for BSG or Expanse so I won't comment on those.
It's not surprising. Roddenberry was a little bit of everywhere though, it turns out. I think his real problem was not having the talent/focus/health to be completely in charge. As for TNG's ensemble cast, not only did DS9 do it better, but my "other" favorite ST movie did it first. But I can appreciate why fans feel STD was a step backwards (but then so was ENT, and I think VOY as well).
EDIT - Thanks for linking that btw
I wouldn't blame CBS for continuing without Fuller, nor question their level of commitment after having spent the money. But I would have found a way to keep him, regardless of who you needed to start leaning on him. Assuming he didn't just walk. Once he left, it's like they're performing brain surgery with what he left them. I would've kept the two episodes intact, kept Meyer's input in high regard (I doubt he could have stepped in as showrunner) and tried to produce his show.
Farscape sure ain't ST... but it's a random example of what could be. Once O'Bannon and Henson have delivered on it though, absolutely you don't want to copy it. But I look at every better space show out there, and I'm like "What's the matter with you ST? That could have been you out there. What are you doing?" Hunt for Red October and Master and Commander are both secretly great ST movies. [EDIT - obviously they're not space movies]
I have no doubt at all what the fans mostly want is Berman Trek, even when they won't admit it. Almost every idea that seems to come out of fan circles reads like a BT-styled ST: The Next-NextGeneration or some-such. I get it, they want the perfectly-aligned canon with a bow wrapped around it... and for an entire generation that was Berman Trek. Thing is ST isn't that... at least outside of BT it isn't.
I'm all about the Bob Wises, The Nick Meyers, the people who come in and want to make "this Star Trek thing" work for them. And I believe Fuller was another such person. And I don't know WHAT Tarantino had, but I feel like it's something ST needed. ST should want to be the best at what it does, not just be safe. It doesn't mean being BSG or Firely, because as long as you get there first it won't be and couldn't be. But we have enough Safe Trek.
Last edited:
Tarantino can stay far away from Trek. No, I don't want safe Trek but I sure don't want Tarantino either. I agree about Meyer or Wise and that approach. That's why I value Abrams a lot more than most do. He recognized that it wasn't a franchise he knew, but he wanted to try and make it more approachable. Which, is Star Trek's current problem. It isn't approachable. Discovery, for all its flaws, actually is more approachable to a lot of casuals I have talked to outside of here. People are like "Hey, there's a new Trek show. I never watched it before but it actually was a lot of fun." It amazes me that just having fun with Star Trek is some how novel now but I loved it. And that's why I value the Wises and the Meyers and am hesitant with the Tarantinos.
But, what is needed is someone with a strong opinion who is willing to set the course and be able to play inside what CBS needs.
I wanted to see just what Tarantino would have done. I don't assume it would have been canonical, even if it was I doubt it would break "canon" in the way that fans constantly seem to fear. Canon seems to ignore anything a producer or writing team just considers too weird, such as warp salamanders or vast energy barriers surrounding the rim of our galaxy.
However I should have mentioned Abrams in conjunction with Meyer and Wise (and Bennett as well, come to think of it). I don't love Abram's sequels (I like them), but I think Orci's/Kurtzman's setup for the first movie, as well as Abram's overall redressing of the ST universe, is brilliant. And the movie still ranks at 3rd place for me, though I'm probably past due to re-watch/reassess all the ST movies at this point.
I wasn't aware anyone outside of fandom was watching the current shows, however I may just be out of touch. I don't even know who's up to bat next. SNW I think is still a re-subscribe for me, and most likely STP/LD as well, depending on how delivery of these shows times out. Short Treks was always a catch-up for me (my credit card refused to take the bait), and I think STD is as well.
I think the budgetary issues really, really hurt the storytelling potential for Season 1, insofar as Fuller blew such a big wad of cash the rest of the season was more or less done on the cheap, with less VFX, repeated use of standing sets, and getting halfway through the damn season before we saw a planet for more than five minutes.
Perhaps the single worst choice in terms of storytelling however was the decision to not hire a lot of guest actors, as it gave the season a really stage-play aspect which really worked to the detriment of the "epic" plot it was supposed to be exploring. As an example, there were only four Klingon characters with names in the entire season - T'Kuvma, Kol, Voq, and L'Rell. Michael killed the first two, and the last became Ash, so of course the final episode had to involve handing over the Empire to L'Rell, who had been sitting in the brig doing nothing for half a season. The decision to use MU alters so early on was also pretty troublesome. They wanted to tell this epic war story of galactic proportions, and we got this cramped little window onto it instead, where most of the cool stuff happened off camera.
The worst part about this is...none of it needed to happen. The best stakes are personal rather than global in scale when it comes to drama, and Michael's character arc would have been just as compelling if the Discovery was just a normal ship serving in the Klingon War.
I have absolutely no evidence of this, but I think Fuller had some sort of breakdown - either related to mental health or drug/alcohol abuse - around that period. He was fired from American Gods after completing Season 1 essentially simultaneously, and was dropped from the planned Amazing Stories and Anne Rice: The Vampire Chronicles as well. And he hasn't done any work at all since then (though he's reportedly working on a movie now).
Less concerned about canon. More I don't trust Tarantino.
I think Abrams got bit by the canon bug sadly. I agree that the set up is fantastic and remains one of my favorite Trek visuals.
I believe Prodigy is next.
And that's the perks of my job. I talk to a lot of people from a lot of backgrounds. With COVID TV shows became common topics.
I think going on about reused sets in Discovery might be a little bit harsh. Do you know how tired I got of seeing another desert planet in the Mandalorian? And then they're going on about fantastic backgrounds possible thanks to their AR tech, and then spend another episode on a desert planet? That pulled me out of the show for a bit, whereas I never got the "Oh no, we're here again" feeling from Discovery.
In retrospect maybe Season 1 did end in a confrontation with a small room in a well, but I was just so happy to see Qo'noS/Kronos in an area that wasn't the High Council chambers, and seeing the partying Orions and Klingons there was just pretty refreshing. And I just kept thinking, if TOS had the budget back in the day they totally would've had Kirk and Spock go infiltrate the Klingon homeworld like Discovery's doing now.
In retrospect maybe Season 1 did end in a confrontation with a small room in a well, but I was just so happy to see Qo'noS/Kronos in an area that wasn't the High Council chambers, and seeing the partying Orions and Klingons there was just pretty refreshing. And I just kept thinking, if TOS had the budget back in the day they totally would've had Kirk and Spock go infiltrate the Klingon homeworld like Discovery's doing now.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
