Ok, so its not just Star Trek then.
News Starfleet Academy Coming to P+
- Thread starter Tuskin38
- Start date
Once I have to go WHAT??? Examples of this "dumbing down"? I mean they probably threw more hard science concepts and even fringe science concepts at us than any other Trek show.
What "corporate synergy"? How did DISCO tie in to the greater CBS/Paramount/Showtime landscape? Were there appearances on some MTV reality show? A special crossover with FBI/NCIS/Criminal Minds? Beavis and Butthead make an appearance in a episode? Tom Cruise paraglide in to promote Mission Impossible? I would have appreciated a little more "synergy", More Colbert or Daily Show appearances. That goes for SNW and LD, too.
While I'd like to think otherwise, I'm not sure the corporate suits were actively saying "More gay characters!!!" Especially in the recent climate. Then again, I'm not sure they paid much attention to the franchise beyond bean counting.
If you want to complain about the writing, complain about the writing. There is plenty there to complain about. But don't throw out a bunch of cool buzzword that you have maybe a partial understanding of that have no actual bearing on the show
But the writing is where everything starts. Also by corporate I mean the show feels like it was made by people who listened to people wearing fancy suits who have gone all over the numbers as to what they felt a modern audiences would want. Less so from someone who is a artist with a true vision. Well I guess Fuller was that artist with a true vision and they replaced him.
That's why I think the show has lots of good elements such as Burnham being someone who starts off as someone who has committed treason. Trek finally having it's first LGBTQ characters, A Captain who is a bad guy and TIlly being a kind of nerd. Saru being a a sort of old school type of Trek character in the vein of Spock,Data etc. You got a nice set of characters with some built in potential for internal conflict. A show that will be time skipping.
Yet despite all these elements the show just feels so bland. Tries to be hip but it feels more CW like when it does that. Or MCU like. The potential is just wasted at making ordinary modern day tv instead of actually breaking new ground.
That's why I think the show has lots of good elements such as Burnham being someone who starts off as someone who has committed treason. Trek finally having it's first LGBTQ characters, A Captain who is a bad guy and TIlly being a kind of nerd. Saru being a a sort of old school type of Trek character in the vein of Spock,Data etc. You got a nice set of characters with some built in potential for internal conflict. A show that will be time skipping.
Yet despite all these elements the show just feels so bland. Tries to be hip but it feels more CW like when it does that. Or MCU like. The potential is just wasted at making ordinary modern day tv instead of actually breaking new ground.
Ok.
I think it did and also created a new feel of Trek. And none of this changes what it actually did, no matter thr complaints of wasted opportunity. I think Voyager and Enterprise are worse but they still add to Trek. It still comments, still engages, still fun.
Well I agree. It is all about difference of opinions. I am cool with that. I think Enterprise also started off with some of the same restriction. Not allowing season 1 to start on earth and take time before the Enterprise is launched. Great idea shot down by the studio. It sort of redeemed itself though in season 3 and 4.
Examples of this? You think DISCO is what the suits wanted when they asked for a new Trek show? Which parts?
But, are we now lamenting what might have been? To what end?
I think they wanted more of the Abrams movies in essence, but on tv. Combined with a Rey like character as the lead because that worked well in "Star Wars:The Force Awakens" which despite what some might say today was both a popular and well made adventure film. Fuller I think had higher goals than just more escapism adventure. He wanted it to be a little more complex and deep. The studio didn't want that though. They just wanted the escapism. That is how Lorca goes from being a Captain dealing PTSD to being a cartoon from the mirror universe as one example.
Something to talk about.
But, it seems oddly contradictory to say Discovery was corporate mandated and lacked the Trek feel but Voyager and Enterprise had it too, for similar reasons, and are ok.
Michael is a Fuller creation and the only thing she has in common with Rey is she's female. Not seeing any Star Wars sequel DNA in DISCO. Most of the "bones" of DISCO is from Fuller. Lorca being from MU is also Fuller. I believe Issacs knew this from the beginning. The people who ran DISCO after Fuller's departure were Fuller's assistants. They were in the room when the show was being created. Unless you've been holding back, you weren't. IIRC, Fuller wasn't let go because of his "vision" he was let go because he couldn't manage a budget. His successors were let go because they couldn't handle people.
Evidence that the "Studio" just wanted escapism? Sure the show had a lot of high octane action, but there was more than that.
Now if you want a show that feels like it was created in a corporate meeting room, take a look at Picard Season Three. Okay it also feels like it was created in a fanboy's wet dream as well.
Last edited:
Lorca was originally going to be from another alternate universe, rather than the Mirror Universe. Lorca was meant to be from a universe where Michael Burnham was instead hailed as a hero who found a peaceful solution preventing the Battle of the Binary Stars and subsequent war with the Klingons.
However, yes, by the time Jason Isaacs was cast the decision was made that Lorca would be from the MU, which Isaacs was informed of the minute after he signed his contract.
Yeah. Fuller just wanted Lorca as a hardass, militarist captain. Berg and Harberts came up with the idea to have him from the MU. The ship was always going to go to the MU however, but originally earlier in the season, which probably would have been better, insofar as it may have avoided the rush at the end of the season.
Fuller also wanted the tardigrade to have a position on the bridge - be the navigation officer, IIRC.
To be fair I feel like some of that Trek magic was lacking with those shows as well. When it comes to old Trek most of the greatness does come from TOS,TNG and DS9 and the TOS movies and one TNG movie. Voyager was passable and Enterprise actually got good in it's final two seasons.
I think also one thing missing is I believe the idea was Rosario Dawson was going to be the first choice to play Burnham. Somehow I don't think Burnham would have been written were she was crying so much and sort of doing the trite monologue stuff. No offense to SMG but Dawson just projects strength and someone who feels like someone who would have a real edge to the character.
That's more fair than I was expecting.
I'll never get this anti-tear thing. Kirk and Picard and Janeway and Archer all monaloged all the time too. Is it the combination of tears that makes less strong?
Last edited:
I think it comes down simply to acting. It's not easy making speeches sound good. Of course your going to loose out compared to Stewart's gravitas and KIrk's broad acting. Also having characters cry is not a bad thing, but if you do it to much then it starts to feel like melodrama more than serious drama. They did it so much it ended up become a thing of parody.
I've seen every episode. I have seen season 1 at least twice. I will likely give it another try someday as well. I will watch anything with a Trek label on it.
What do you think of Admiral Vance?
Similar threads
