I don't understand the hate Disco gets / still gets.

[Richard S. Ta]

But Discovery drew heavily on TOS lore, even if you just look at the first season, from the story of Spock choosing Starfleet over the Vulcan Science Academy, to the Mirror Universe, to Harry Mudd, to any number of big and small easter eggs.

I agree it drew on lore, but it made great efforts to reframe that lore. Spock choosing Starfleet was a kick in the gut to Michael, with Spock being the favoured one who refused the Academy place she wanted. The Mirror Universe was closer aesthetically to the version presented in DS9/ENT. Bringing in Mudd and subsequently Stella was as close to an outright nod as we got.

But there's things in Season 1 which for many flew in the face of so much that had been established. Redesigned Klingons both physically and in terms of the technology. A super-drive that might have been very useful if a ship was stuck in the Delta Quadrant say or Spock having another secret sibling.

Like I said, Season 1 of DSC is challenging. It deals with big, heavy themes and doesn't shy from them, but at the same time it asks a lot of the long-term Star Trek fan. I think there was some pushback by the time they had Season 2 in the planning stages, hence Klingons suddenly growing huge manes of hair or the glimpsed Season 1 D7 design being quietly shuffled away and replaced with something that looks more like the TOS D7.

I think SNW and DSC started out with completely different intentions. The phrase that has come to mind when watching SNW over the last few weeks is that to me it is 'Your Grandfather's Star Trek'. It's structured and designed to be as much like a classic Star Trek show as it can be. DSC on the other hand is a show that takes risks. From decentralising the role of the Captain to shifting time periods. It’s divisive by design in a way that SNW isn’t.

 

[dupersuper]

Others have given arguments. I don't see the issue as you do.

No one in this thread does, as far as I can tell, but they'll keep trying to convince us, arguing in circles and dismissing multiple people who don't see what they do at all. Gotta' love the internet.

The second episode of Star Trek was all about how Kirk killing his best friend in retaliation for murders Gary Mitchel committed while mentally ill.

I'd say in self defense and defense of others. I never got the impression Kirk was retaliating for anything. He just had to stop the increasingly powerful Mitchell before he killed more.

The TOS movies are good movies. The TNG movies, though mostly enjoyable do suffer from basically being extended length TV episodes. The Abrams movies, though they do have some entertainment value, really aren't that good at all.

I can't group them all together like that. A couple of the specific rankings change, but generally right now I go:

Wrath of Khan
Voyage Home
First Contact
Undiscovered Country
Search for Spock
Motion Picture
Beyond
Final Frontier
2009
Generations
Insurrection
Into Darkness
Nemesis

Una in SNW is pretty close to Number One in "The Cage(TOS)" and any changes to Pike's behavior can in part be explained by his experiences on Talos IV and with the Klingon time crystal. There. We're done. It's called the passage of time and character development.

Yeah: the characters from The Cage have had 5 years pass since then, the future TOS characters are being seen 6 years before TOS. There's plenty of wiggle room for personalities being slightly different.

 

[STEPhon IT]

1. SNW isn't what I asked for but the episodes have been very good, nonetheless. I don't demand that everything be exactly what I ask for, because you never know, you might be surprised.

2. SNW giving some people what they wanted five years ago is quieting them down about DSC because now they have a show they want.

I consider both of these things to be good.

Just imagine what the showrunners could really do if they had the confidence to create their own characters and place them in a different time period? That's season 4. Now what if they had the guts to do that with STRANGE? Hmm.

BAH! At least the sfx is great and I can enjoy the interior imagery and just smile.

 

[Charles Phipps]

Just imagine what the showrunners could really do if they had the confidence to create their own characters and place them in a different time period? That's season 4. Now what if they had the guts to do that with STRANGE? Hmm.

BAH! At least the sfx is great and I can enjoy the interior imagery and just smile.

I mean they did have the confidence.

Now they want to do the prequel that DISCO *SHOULD* have been but got ruined by them going into the future.

(Yes, I am one of THOSE fans who think DISCO and The Orville lost their groove)

 

[TedShatner10]

I'd say in self defense and defense of others. I never got the impression Kirk was retaliating for anything. He just had to stop the increasingly powerful Mitchell before he killed more.

Seven's killing of Bjayzl is passionate and could be deemed as self-serving, it's her most unlawful killing, but she killed a crimelord who had directly murdered XBs and who knew who else in at least the many dozens for profit and power.

 

[Lord Garth]

Now they want to do the prequel that DISCO *SHOULD* have been but got ruined by them going into the future.

(Yes, I am one of THOSE fans who think DISCO and The Orville lost their groove)

Nothing about DSC's concept said, "I should be a prequel!" DSC's first two seasons shouldn't have been a prequel. DSC isn't a TOS-y show. That's why I didn't have a problem with it not looking like or feeling like TOS. It's not a TNG-y show either. It's something else.

Bryan Fuller originally only planned to spend one season in the 23rd Century and one season with the crew he created. CBS made him stay with one crew but the people who replaced him still didn't want to stick to one time period. That's why I think they introduced the time crystals at all in Season 1. And showed off that the Spore Drive could jump nine months into the future. They were spit-balling until they figured out how they were really going to get DSC into a new timeframe. But it was never going to stay in the 23rd Century. If it had, then the Spore Drive would have to be a failure. Otherwise, why don't they have Spore Drive ships in TOS, TNG, DS9, or VOY? I can live with it being classified to keep other enemies from obtaining the technology, but something had to be done. The tech had to be nipped in the bud when it was.

One of the things that really drew me to "Calypso" was that it made me wonder, "Okay? So where is Disco really going to go?" It could do a Hell of a lot more than just lead into Kirk. And now it is. Leave "leading into Kirk" to SNW.

 

[Lord Garth]

Just imagine what the showrunners could really do if they had the confidence to create their own characters and place them in a different time period? That's season 4. Now what if they had the guts to do that with STRANGE? Hmm.

BAH! At least the sfx is great and I can enjoy the interior imagery and just smile.

I'm not an SNW Superfan. So you're not going to get an argument about this from me. Though I will say my two favorite characters are La'an and Number One. One a totally new character and the other someone who they hardly did anything with before so she might as well be a new character.

Spoiler

Nothing about the show so far falls under "strange", a couple of things are "new", and they have the "worlds" part down. So it's living up to half of its name.

So I'm sold on SNW, yes, but not like the way I am with DSC. That'll likely never happen again.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

Nothing about DSC's concept said, "I should be a prequel!"

The only thing that would have to be lost in Season 1 of DSC in order to have set it into (say) the 25th-26th century to begin with is the Michael/Spock relationship which I don't think would have hurt the overall arc of the season or the show going forward.

DSC should have been post-TNG from the off and then I think it would gather a lot less nerd-hatred. As it is, it is what it is... It's a show that's narratively all over the place until it soft-reboots itself in Season 3. For the better.

 

[cooleddie74]

For the WAAAY better.

 

[Lord Garth]

It's like you're on a road. The prequels are behind you. The sequels are ahead of you.

Here's DSC, with ENT in the rear-view mirror and TOS up ahead. DSC is moving at 90 miles an hour. It's a speed demon. It wants to push itself up to 100. There are no cops around, it wants to show off. TOS is in front, driving 65. It's following the speed limit. DSC is having none of that. So it switches lanes, zips right passed TOS, sees TNG, DS9, and VOY coming up, and zips passed them too. It honks the horn and waves as it passes by PIC, kicks it into overdrive, goes way ahead, and then switches back into the original lane again ahead of everything else.

Then SNW comes onto the road from one of the side-streets in-between ENT and TOS. TOS puts its blinkers on, then SNW switches lanes, but still doesn't speed ahead.

PIC gets off the road quick. It was only taking a short ride.

If DSC stayed where it originally was, it would've crashed right into TOS and caused a Major Accident. With where SNW has positioned itself, it can still speed up a little and the worse it does is run parallel to TOS for a bit.

 

[STEPhon IT]

Nothing about DSC's concept said, "I should be a prequel!" DSC's first two seasons shouldn't have been a prequel. DSC isn't a TOS-y show. That's why I didn't have a problem with it not looking like or feeling like TOS. It's not a TNG-y show either. It's something else.

Bryan Fuller originally only planned to spend one season in the 23rd Century and one season with the crew he created. CBS made him stay with one crew but the people who replaced him still didn't want to stick to one time period. That's why I think they introduced the time crystals at all in Season 1. And showed off that the Spore Drive could jump nine months into the future. They were spit-balling until they figured out how they were really going to get DSC into a new timeframe. But it was never going to stay in the 23rd Century. If it had, then the Spore Drive would have to be a failure. Otherwise, why don't they have Spore Drive ships in TOS, TNG, DS9, or VOY? I can live with it being classified to keep other enemies from obtaining the technology, but something had to be done. The tech had to be nipped in the bud when it was.

One of the things that really drew me to "Calypso" was that it made me wonder, "Okay? So where is Disco really going to go?" It could do a Hell of a lot more than just lead into Kirk. And now it is. Leave "leading into Kirk" to SNW.

There was enough material seen in DISCO to be comfortably set in the later part of the 25th Century and go where ever; there was enough alien visual factor to imagine the wazoo. I'd hoped the showrunners would insert the Temporal Starfleet from the future had some war with their Mirror universe counterparts and now with this insurgence has f*cked up the space time continuum, and DISCO would have to solve it.

 

[EnderAKH]

I find it interesting that people keep saying "They could have/should have set Discovery in the 25th century. Or a new show." But here's what ACTUALLY happened. Many people over the years from the end of Ent in 2005 until DIS went into pre-production approached CBS/Paramount with pitches for that, as well as other things. There was the Captain Riker pitch. The Captain Worf pitch. JMS's TOS reboot. It all came across their desks and they passed. But then, in comes Bryan Fuller. He pitches an anthology series, with the first season based on a line from TOS set in and around the Klingon skirmishes. His pitch has a few advantages. #1, it's Bryan Fuller, a proven name. Not only has he run several shows, he has a past in the Star Trek writer's room which should give him some cred with the fans. #2, it's the right time. CBS is spinning up CBS All Access to be a bigger streaming service, and needs original marquee content to relaunch with. #3 (and this is an assumption on my part, but I believe a fair one) his proposed budget is one CBS can live with, and #4 Fuller probably gave a good pitch that got them all intrigued and excited. So they massage the concept (turning it from an anthology to a regular series) and give it a green light.

They didn't do a 25th century show because at the time they wanted to do a show that's not the show the guy in front of them wanted to do. He wanted to do the TOS prequel that dealt with the Klingon skirmishes (now to be flashed out into a full on war). No name producer had the pitch you wanted to see, or at the very list didn't pitch it well to executives, at the time they needed content for CBS All Access.

 

[fireproof78]

I find it interesting that people keep saying "They could have/should have set Discovery in the 25th century. Or a new show." But here's what ACTUALLY happened. Many people over the years from the end of Ent in 2005 until DIS went into pre-production approached CBS/Paramount with pitches for that, as well as other things. There was the Captain Riker pitch. The Captain Worf pitch. JMS's TOS reboot. It all came across their desks and they passed. But then, in comes Bryan Fuller. He pitches an anthology series, with the first season based on a line from TOS set in and around the Klingon skirmishes. His pitch has a few advantages. #1, it's Bryan Fuller, a proven name. Not only has he run several shows, he has a past in the Star Trek writer's room which should give him some cred with the fans. #2, it's the right time. CBS is spinning up CBS All Access to be a bigger streaming service, and needs original marquee content to relaunch with. #3 (and this is an assumption on my part, but I believe a fair one) his proposed budget is one CBS can live with, and #4 Fuller probably gave a good pitch that got them all intrigued and excited. So they massage the concept (turning it from an anthology to a regular series) and give it a green light.

They didn't do a 25th century show because at the time they wanted to do one, that's not the show the guy in front of them wanted to do. He wanted to do the TOS prequel that dealt with the Klingon skirmishes (now to be flashed out into a full on war). No name producer had the pitch you wanted to see, or at the very list didn't pitch it well to executives, at the time they needed content for CBS All Access.

It's all hindsight at this point, and armchair quaterbacking as we fans do without having access to all the facts, or what actually went on that caused the massive changes mid development.

 

[TedShatner10]

And Trek fanbois have already gotten back into the old bad habit of bigging up one show (Strange New Worlds) and arbitrarily shitting on others (either Picard, Lower Decks, and Discovery).

I can understand the initial dislike and confusion over Discovery (when it took many creative liberties and was creatively discordant in wake of Fuller's possible meltdown), but it just carried on and gotten much more disingenuous, more forced, like they got mentally drilled by Berman era Trek and large sections of the population got far too succeptable to the "Fandom Menace" hysteria and YT biolerplate rant pieces.

See:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Bullies get boring very quickly.

 

[STEPhon IT]

From my understanding there was a portion of fandom did not like the Berman era; there were too much of the brand where it caused them to look at those series with a microscope. Those youtube clowns are making money hustling people's disgust for these new shows, like ALL ACCESS PLUS VIACOM streaming, one has the choice to either not watch it or just not take the inferior work seriously. This will continue regardless because Viacom will produce more Trek shows and they'll always be a mixed bag and critics will have more bad material to exploit. Either way, it all fuels the audience one way or the other.

Still don't think DISCO had the same kind of vitriol like VOY or ENT because the resume from Alex Kurtzman and his colleagues displays the kind of material they produce. Oscar and Emmy Award material is not what they do... you don't hire Michael Bay to direct "Pearl Harbor" and expect it to earn high honored nominations??? The point of hiring those people were to gravitate on the JJ Abrams kinds of Movie - viewers FLUFF dramedies. Its a success, the 25 producers and counting are delivering the best their talents ever could imagine. Its not anything near what was done before but I can see they're trying.

 

[Charles Phipps]

Nothing about DSC's concept said, "I should be a prequel!" DSC's first two seasons shouldn't have been a prequel. DSC isn't a TOS-y show. That's why I didn't have a problem with it not looking like or feeling like TOS. It's not a TNG-y show either. It's something else.

What is DISCO's concept to you, precisely? Because for me it was "The Klingon War, Spock's sister, and a time before the Enterprise." I wanted to explore the Federation around the time of the Kelvin-verse but in the canon timeline when the Federation is established and after Enterprise but before the more familiar era.

I don't hate the 33rd century but I liked what was established in the previous two seasons.

 

[Lord Garth]

What is DISCO's concept to you, precisely? Because for me it was "The Klingon War, Spock's sister, and a time before the Enterprise." I wanted to explore the Federation around the time of the Kelvin-verse but in the canon timeline when the Federation is established and after Enterprise but before the more familiar era.

I don't hate the 33rd century but I liked what was established in the previous two seasons.

The adventures of Michael Burnham and the USS Discovery as they travel through time, space, and dimension with their Spore Drive.

I also said this last year in a similar thread. My answer is still the same.

 

[Charles Phipps]

The adventures of Michael Burnham and the USS Discovery as they travel through time, space, and dimension with their Spore Drive.

I also said this last year in a similar thread. My answer is still the same.

Honestly, the Spore Drive is the least engaging part of the story for me. It seems like a cheat and I don't know what it adds that a "really fast engine" wouldn't.

But I suppose some people like other things more than the other.

I regret we'll never see Tilly meet her mother or Saru involved in the peace on his world more.

 

[Yistaan]

What is DISCO's concept to you, precisely? Because for me it was "The Klingon War, Spock's sister, and a time before the Enterprise." I wanted to explore the Federation around the time of the Kelvin-verse but in the canon timeline when the Federation is established and after Enterprise but before the more familiar era.

I don't hate the 33rd century but I liked what was established in the previous two seasons.

I'm not sure Discovery even knows what its concept is anymore. After powering through every episode of Season 4, I just left the season finale to internet summary for myself. Basic questions about why Tarka doesn't just ask the aliens to take him to the Nexus or whatever were glossed over past the point of rationality by this point. Saru and T'Rina was so cringeworthy that I felt like going back to Anakin and Padme's scenes in AOTC, and I thought you couldn't get worse than that.

And I'm sorry, but I'm just not a fan about what I heard about bringing Stacey Abrams in, and I'm a big supporter of her and her political party. I agree that Trek always was political, but there was always a degree of separation between real world events. We need to use the stories to show how certain views can be harmful but going straight to real world politicians and bringing them in seems more likely to drive away the other side rather than keep them engaged and open to change. I know if Giuliani showed up on Trek, I'd probably stop watching that show for good.

 

[RandyS]

I'd say in self defense and defense of others. I never got the impression Kirk was retaliating for anything. He just had to stop the increasingly powerful Mitchell before he killed more.

What?? Mitchell never killed anybody. He was just growing in power and Kirk had to leave him on Delta Vega before he got too powerful.