When you type abbreviations all day it's not fun for leisure, or supposed leisure of Star Trek.
Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 5x01 - "Red Directive"
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
I learned that from watching Star Trek shows. Lol
Regarding Starfleet captains staying on the ship or being on every away mission, I think one thing is being forgotten.
Archer, Kirk, and Pike make sense because of the era they took place... 22nd-23rd centuries. (Particularly Archer, as he was THE first Starfleet captain going out as far as he did.) It was a more frontier time... a space wild west. Keep in mind that TOS was pitched as a western in space, and with that comes certain expectations... like the lead (captain) being in the thick of the action all the time.
With the 24th century (Picard, Sisko, Janeway), space was not quite the wild west it used to be, so Starfleet regulations adjusted to that mentality. Which is why Picard rarely left the ship. Same with Sisko and Janeway. (Though they certainly left far more often than Picard, it was nowhere near as often as Kirk or Archer.)
Burnham seems to be the question here. By the time she became captain, they were already in the 32nd century. But she comes from an era where the captain would be leading away teams all the time. (We see Georgiou do it in the very first scene of DISCO.) She's following that example. But more importantly, the 32nd century is actually more of a space wild west frontier than the 23rd century... maybe even more than the 22nd. So while Starfleet may have adopted the 'captain stays on ship, XO goes on away teams' philosophy after Kirk's time, it's certainly possible Starfleet may have reverted back to a more relaxed view on captains always leaving the ship, especially since the times call for a more wild west mindset.
Archer, Kirk, and Pike make sense because of the era they took place... 22nd-23rd centuries. (Particularly Archer, as he was THE first Starfleet captain going out as far as he did.) It was a more frontier time... a space wild west. Keep in mind that TOS was pitched as a western in space, and with that comes certain expectations... like the lead (captain) being in the thick of the action all the time.
With the 24th century (Picard, Sisko, Janeway), space was not quite the wild west it used to be, so Starfleet regulations adjusted to that mentality. Which is why Picard rarely left the ship. Same with Sisko and Janeway. (Though they certainly left far more often than Picard, it was nowhere near as often as Kirk or Archer.)
Burnham seems to be the question here. By the time she became captain, they were already in the 32nd century. But she comes from an era where the captain would be leading away teams all the time. (We see Georgiou do it in the very first scene of DISCO.) She's following that example. But more importantly, the 32nd century is actually more of a space wild west frontier than the 23rd century... maybe even more than the 22nd. So while Starfleet may have adopted the 'captain stays on ship, XO goes on away teams' philosophy after Kirk's time, it's certainly possible Starfleet may have reverted back to a more relaxed view on captains always leaving the ship, especially since the times call for a more wild west mindset.
Truthfully, given how many abbreviations are out there, and how many use the exact same letters, it's more work to use abbreviations instead of writing things out so you are clear from the start. At least to me.
I think 10 episodes for a treasure hunt is going to be too much. There will be too much filler.
Discovery never has any filler. The old shows did though.
A nod and a wink to
John Williams
Better than 26.
Berman was pretty anti-TOS to be honest. The writers pushed for TOS stuff but Berman himself wanted to distance his shows, particularly TNG, from it. He really wasn't involved in DS9 for Trials and Tribulations. You can thank Ira and company for that one.
Because Gene was anti-TOS.
Due to the divorce from his first wife entitling her to a sizable chunk of the royalties to TOS, IIRC.
And that it didn't fit his view of future humanity.
As far as I know, Berman wasn't anti-TOS because of Gene. They had different reasons. Berman's was more due to a misguided sense of TV productions. And I don't believe it's fair to say that Gene was anti-TOS. Perhaps his personal philosophy has evolved. Unless you're referring to something else?
His personal philosophy had evolved and he regarded original Trek as not a complete vision. Hence The Motion Picture being markedly different from the series, and The Next Generation more so.
Ok, yeah, agreed. Berman's reasons were mostly different and didn't stem from Gene's. But I'm sure the end result was an agreement on the issue of not recreating TOS!
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
