Well, Paxton was played by a 50 something Peter Weller and Taggart's syndrome is supposed to be fatal by age 20, so Paxton must've been being treated for 30 years. If it were illegal, how would T'Pol know it's an accepted treatment for the disease by humans? Most people wouldn't take it and they'd all die of it. T'Pol, one of the founders of the Federation, is obviously advocating its continued use saying: "The very thing you're warning humans to avoid is what's keeping you alive. Alien knowledge, freely shared. You're not only a terrorist, you're a hypocrite."
Why the hate for Disco?
- Thread starter David Hanley
- Start date
- Status
Yes, the Federation is full of hypocrites. That's the nature of humans, and the nature of our stories. This tendency is not going to be outgrown by the 24th century. Khan had happened centuries ago yet Bashier's parents still had to find an illegals geneticist to enhance him.
No where am I claiming the Federation is right. But whatever darkness exists is an ongoing struggle, not any darker in Picard or Discovery.
Las I checked, SNW is the series fans have been asking for since at least January 2019 when first introduced to Anson Mount's take on Captain Pike.
Moving Disco to the 32nd century was likely a by-product of fan reactions to Disco season 1, however Picard getting greenlit is proof of Disco's resounding success. Simple truth of the matter is another Trek series would not have been greenlit if Disco was considered anything less then a smash success by the people at CBS whose opinions actually matter.
Considering Disco's going into its fourth season and there are currently four other Trek series in production, two of which are currently doing work on their third season, I'd say it's clear the approach we've seen has worked for CBS and the Trek franchise as a whole. Maybe it's not what The Fans wanted, but it's what The Fans got and it has put the Trek brand back in business. Monday morning quarterbacking about what should have been is meaningless when what is has turned out to be a raging success.
Indeed. It amazes me the cries of failure and not what fans want when production continues.
Well, obviously if they had listened to The Fans Disco wouldn't have been cancelled as often as Midnight's Edge reports it has. That's just logic.
And funded Axanar, obviouslyWell, obviously if they had listened to The Fans Disco wouldn't have been cancelled as often as Midnight's Edge reports it has. That's just logic.
Quite excitingly, we already had five new seasons of Trek since Discovery started, with a total of (I think) 12 seasons already having been announced or aired (DSC seasons 1-5, Picard seasons 1-3, LD seasons 1-3, Prodigy season 1). So in terms of numbers of seasons, compared to the Berman era, we're in 1992 right now, with new seasons up to 1995 already confirmed. (Of course stuff like that isn't directly comparable, but I thought it'd be interesting none the less)
Which I honestly don't agree with, because they're making Strange New Worlds set in the same time period as Seasons 1 and 2 which will cause some of the same issues some people had with Discovery.
So I honestly don't think they moved DSC to the future because of the fan reactions.
You could probably raise that up to fifteen if you include SNW season 1 and the two Short Trek seasons.
Maybe, but considering how much Kurtzman was going on about "fixing canon" during the second season, the move to the 32nd century does feel like it was part of that plan.
The Federation would let an entire civilisation die if saving them meant violating the prime directive
I wonder if Discovery jumping to immediately post-Nemesis was ever part of the plan, considering that any TNG material we're now getting hinged solely on Patrick's agreeing to reprise Picard. If he said no, I could see them deciding to jump Discovery to 2399 and continuing that way instead.
Honestly, even two hundred years post TNG/NEM would have been fine. It really didn't mandate the extremist reaction.
I agree. I think Alex Kurtzman came up with the idea to remove Discovery from the 23rd century before production on season 1 had even finished.
I find the tendency of some fans to bash other fans by turning 'fan' into a pejorative is very ironic. It feels to me like some folks are saying certain opinions-generally theirs are valid-and dissenting opinions aren't. Further, the idea that because something is popular or successful that debate over it should end is also another thing I don't like. The Michael Bay Transformers movies were pretty successful, does that mean no one can feel or argue that they were awful? I like DISCO for the most part though I do have quibbles, I'm okay with Lower Decks, and I didn't like Picard's first season but am willing to give it another chance, but I have the right to 'quarterback' about it as much as you do to cheerlead for CBS Trek.
Something once popular today, even wildly so, doesn't mean it will stay that way. The embrace of The Force Awakens was almost unanimous across the world, but over time people started to look at it through less rose colored glasses, recognizing some/more of the troublesome seeds that sprouted in later sequel entries. While none of CBS Trek has been as embraced like that, so far, still, the idea of something being successful, or seemingly successful, doesn't necessarily mean the franchise is on a strong foundation or will stay that way. Conversely, the opposite is true as well. That certain series or movies that didn't get much attention or love when they debuted are rediscovered in time. I imagine that for DISCO that might happen more after it's off the air. I came around on Enterprise and even to some extent on Voyager so I know personally that change can happen.
I'm not convinced that CBS Trek's expansion isn't due to the demands of the streaming service wars as opposed to outright fan demand. Even in the heyday of Berman Trek, having two Trek series on simultaneously while doing the TNG movie series arguably exhausted fans, and seemingly both fans and the general audience tired on the Kelvin films. Was DISCO a ratings juggernaut last year on CBS prime time? So now CBS/Paramount is attempting to have three live-action Trek series (note Strange New Worlds came about as a result of dreaded fan interest/demand), two animated Trek series, and a revived slate of Trek movies all going at the same time? Has Trek fandom grown that much to support that level of content? Is that really a sign of how healthy the brand is or an attempt to overexpose one of the most popular brands Paramount has because they don't have much else?
Greenlighting more of the same brand is odd if it isn't performing.
Trek Burnout didn't start until after Voyager aired. TNG and DS9 were both stylistically and thematically very different from each other and catered to different aspects of the fan base. Then Voyager came along and basically aped the TNG formula very badly. They introduced bland characters, set it in a bland area of space and took no creative risks despite the whole premise of the show being one that required a deviation from the pre-existing trek formula. Enterprise was more of the same and perceived by some fans as Berman/Braga threatening the TOS legacy. Insurrection and Nemesis, were basically two-part episodes on the big screen. Insurrection took no risks at all and Nemesis tried too hard and came off as campy and cringy and wore out whatever patience trek fans at the time had.
CBS is now taking a very different approach specifically to avoid the burnout that occurred in the early 2000's. Each Trek series is distinct from one another. Discovery is now set in the 32nd century and larger in scope in terms of the stories it wants to tell. Picard is a character study about a man who was once the epitome of Starfleet now living outside of its confines. Lower Decks is basically Trek's take on animated sitcoms. Strange New Worlds will be a planet of the week adventure series. Prodigy is aimed at children and will probably be more in the realm of The last airbender. Section 31 will probably take us to another universe altogether (my guess is the 24th century of the mirror universe) and most likely be more of a spy/spaghetti western type show with Georgiou being a gunslinger travelling around saving people. While these series are all Star Trek there is a greater variety this time around.
Akiva Goldsman is the co-creator of Picard and Strange New Worlds and co-executive producer/co-showrunner on Picard and Strange New Worlds.
Welcome aboard.
One almost has to admire the man for such persistence in the face of such a track record. But studios - perplexingly - continue to hire the man. You imagine having all of that garbage on your résumé and still having the stones to sell yourself as a "writer".
On time, under budget, make some money. Studios want consistency not great art.
I never said anything about how fans reacted to Pike. I said that before STD, there was no fan demand for a show set 10 years before TOS with a close relative of Spock as the main character.
You see differences, I see similarities.
All the live-action NuTrek are shows are about world-ending threats.
DISS2 and PICS1 are about AIs who threaten all life in the galaxy. Thematically these two seasons are so close, people speculated if the Picard AIs are related to Control.
All the live-action NuTrek shows have similar problems with narrative, pacing, plot, dropped storylines that go nowhere, logic, consistency, and characterization.
Then there is the similar vocabulary:
This is from "The Pensky File" Podcast:
All the NuTrek shows have a nostalgia bait hook:
DIS/SNW: 10 years before TOS, Spock, Spock's sister, Sarek, Pike, the Enterprise.
PIC: Sequel to TNG. The show's entire appeal seems to be based on what character will return and to speculate about even more returns. Riker, Troi, Seven, Hugh, Guinan, Q, Crusher, Geordi. And what about Worf?
Prodigy has Janeway and Lower Deck is one giant Memberberries show.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
