Did They Jump Too Far?

[fireproof78]

Sorry for the chunking but really want to address each one.

I'm not sure how "Burnham" is a Trek touchstone.

A child raised in an alien culture and having to come to grips with themselves. Burnham is a character with a traumatic history (definitely a Trek trope, or literary trope), and she has to make peace with that history. It is reminiscent of a lot of Trek stories, Suddenly Human being one, Odo another.

"Extremists from an alien culture" isn't a particularly iconic thing I think of when I think "Star Trek".

Ok. It is for me in terms of classic stories that I think of, like with Roga Danar, or the Changelings.

"Mirror Universe" was largely in name-only.

Disagree. Love seeing more of it, the politics of it, the very human way of trying to legitimize their government.

a sci-fi show that didn't actually want to be Star Trek and was kind of trying to not be Star Trek but was forcing itself to be Star Trek...

I wish I could follow this at all.

There some occasionally flashes of what I think could have been, but on the whole I think she was terrible and one of the largest detriments to the show.

I wish I could understand this perspective at all. I get not liking a character but finding her terrible is one that I would disagree with. Hell, I don't even like Picard but I would not call him a terrible character.

 

[Shikarnov]

I understand the reasons the showrunners used for taking the show into the 32nd century - being free of any prior canon. But would ot have been better to jump to the 26th, or thereabouts?

The technology didn't seem that much further advanced in the 32nd from the 24th (consider 21st century tech compared to 13th century tech) Likewise, their constant harking back to the 24th century (Dominion War, last appearance of a Q, The Chase etc) seemed a bit of a stretch - we don't harken back to the specifics of 13th century history much. Both these things made me feel like there hadn't been much development in eight centuries and I found it a bit distracting.

Perhaps a one or two century jump, not too disimilar from that between TOS and TNG might have worked better?

Frankly, I don't understand the showrunners reasons. I think it's just laziness that they can't write within the confines of an established universe. Somehow the novelists manage to do a pretty good job, even when writing TOS and TNG novels. I'm reading Pliable Truths by Dayton Ward right now, and it takes place just before DS9, and somehow canon doesn't manage to stymie him, and knowing that Captain Picard won't die doesn't make the story any less interesting.

Regarding technology... Maybe it goes in cycles. from 0 - 1800 there wasn't that much change, and then bam, the whole world is (for better or for worse) reformed in just 200 years.

Me either. Picard season 3 was fun and seeing the Enterprise D again was a novelty, but the series was all about keeping the status quo and looking backwards. The new characters can't succeed without the old characters, the new hero ship can't succeed without the old hero ship, the main villains are hung up on a conflict that ended 25 years ago, the new peaceful Borg are ignored for the old, malevolent Borg. The Titan can't have it's own legacy but has to become an Enterprise. And Seven being it's Captain and Jack Crusher being assigned to it after skipping the academy entirely was just too much.

There's being reverential, and then there's whatever Terry Matalas wanted . A series being inexorably tied to the Next Generation and having no identity of it's own? Yeah I'll pass.

The problem, IMO, is the reason the new characters cant succeed without the old and the new hero ship can't succeed without the old one is because the writers haven't created new ideas that are really compelling -- and as a result, they almost have to call back the old ideas to succeed. That they had to bring back the whole TNG crew and ship in order to have a season that's even close to successful is a scathing indictment of the whole enterprise.

 

[fireproof78]

Frankly, I don't understand the showrunners reasons

It's not laziness; it's fear.

 

[Shikarnov]

It's not laziness; it's fear.

Probably both. They can't be bothered to learn about the setting of their stories and they fear fans calling them out.

 

[fireproof78]

Probably both. They can't be bothered to learn about the setting of their stories and they fear fans calling them out.

I lean towards fear. See, fear is driving a lot of Hollywood decisions, especially for some just plain getting out. But, it's not like reactions to inaccuracies are someone constructive. So, they fear the negative backlash so won't do much outside of it. They just stay in their lane and repeat themes because that's what Trek fans vocally support.

 

[evilchumlee]

I lean towards fear. See, fear is driving a lot of Hollywood decisions, especially for some just plain getting out. But, it's not like reactions to inaccuracies are someone constructive. So, they fear the negative backlash so won't do much outside of it. They just stay in their lane and repeat themes because that's what Trek fans vocally support.

Which is weird on the part of Discovery because they were like, actively doing things to draw the ire of fans.

 

[fireproof78]

Which is weird on the part of Discovery because they were like, actively doing things to draw the ire of fans.

This is an odd assumption. Fuller did, yes, but then Kurtzman and the rest had to work with what was given to them because, well money isn't infinite. So, they tried to go thematically a new direction and bring in those touchstones of Trek, as I mentioned before. They tried combine a lot of things that Fuller wanted to do in to one. In short, the challenges were not meant to draw ire of fans, but work within the framework set up. Short of burning it all to the ground and doing a tax write off. Which, reading this thread, sounds like many would prefer.

And every time the ire of the vocal fans got prodded they withdrew. They contracted. They jumped to the 32nd century but that's not good enough. It's not "Star Trek!" was the rallying cry I would see. So, they would bring in a touchstone, like the 10-C aliens, a reflection of both the Doomsday Machine and V'Ger.

To my view, it was always reactionary. And, again, for me, Burnham and Saru and them kept me invested, but that doesn't make the choices good. It, sadly, reflects a fear based storytelling, rather than necessarily a story with conviction.

 

[evilchumlee]

This is an odd assumption. Fuller did, yes, but then Kurtzman and the rest had to work with what was given to them because, well money isn't infinite. So, they tried to go thematically a new direction and bring in those touchstones of Trek, as I mentioned before. They tried combine a lot of things that Fuller wanted to do in to one. In short, the challenges were not meant to draw ire of fans, but work within the framework set up. Short of burning it all to the ground and doing a tax write off. Which, reading this thread, sounds like many would prefer.

And every time the ire of the vocal fans got prodded they withdrew. They contracted. They jumped to the 32nd century but that's not good enough. It's not "Star Trek!" was the rallying cry I would see. So, they would bring in a touchstone, like the 10-C aliens, a reflection of both the Doomsday Machine and V'Ger.

To my view, it was always reactionary. And, again, for me, Burnham and Saru and them kept me invested, but that doesn't make the choices good. It, sadly, reflects a fear based storytelling, rather than necessarily a story with conviction.

You aren't wrong. I don't blame Kurtzman... Fuller sabotaged Discovery from the jump. I do give credit to Kurtzman, there clearly WAS a response to much of the fan outcry. They absolutely did address things and the show absolutely did improve.

There are things that I may complain about and ask why they did that, but there may have been a real reason. I harp on the continued focus on Burnham but... that may well have been some kind of contractual thing. It's entirely possible Green's contract was that she was the main character, so they had to work with it.

I mean. Yes... at the end of the day, I still absolutely despise Discovery and do kind of wish they just said "well, this is a wash" and burned it to the ground. Or at the very least, kept on with it and just said "it's a reboot universe, Discovery is it's own thing".

It's easy to blame the showrunner for things, but it's not always in their control. I've been vocal in my displeasure of how they handled the Enterprise. It's easy to say "WTF, Kurtzman?" but... Kurtzman may not have made that decision. That may well have come from upstairs.

 

[fireproof78]

I mean. Yes... at the end of the day, I still absolutely despise Discovery and do kind of wish they just said "well, this is a wash" and burned it to the ground. Or at the very least, kept on with it and just said "it's a reboot universe, Discovery is it's own thing".

Since I feel that way, perhaps not as strongly since I do not wish it burned, with many Trek shows I can sympathize somewhat.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

I lean towards fear. See, fear is driving a lot of Hollywood decisions, especially for some just plain getting out. But, it's not like reactions to inaccuracies are someone constructive. So, they fear the negative backlash so won't do much outside of it. They just stay in their lane and repeat themes because that's what Trek fans vocally support.

It's a bit negative to say that attempts to respond to audience feedback is just fear. I mean when Muse goes out on tour, it's not fear that stops them from playing a full set of Elvis Presley covers, it's knowing what their audience wants to hear and having an innate desire to perform that kind of music anyway. No one ever complains about how fear drove the creators of The Last of Us and Fallout to break the curse of live action video game series by striving for authenticity instead of just doing whatever they felt like.

When creatives and the fans are in sync, that's a good thing. Sure Star Trek's fan base is diverse enough to complain about everything and producers can't actually please everyone (especially with folks stirring up hate to feed the algorithm), but feedback is absolutely crucial for improvement and they were right to use it to guide their decisions.

 

[fireproof78]

t's a bit negative to say that attempts to respond to audience feedback is just fear.

Yes, it is. That's my whole point. There wasn't the constructive side of it. Just loud voices saying "THis is bad!" And whenever something was changed they were not rewarded for it. Yeah, the whole business is extremely negative.

but feedback is absolute crucial for improvement and they were right to use it to guide their decisions.

There's a difference and I watched it since early 2000. There's feedback and then there's the fear. And fear has been an increasingly loud force for a while now, because it's not feedback that drives better art. It's backlash for not catering to one particular set of interests, be it aesthetics, lore, or respect. And even with Fallout there was still backlash because it changed perceived lore. But, the production team stuck with their guns.

In my humble estimation, governed only by anecdotal observations, the negativity is what drove changes, within the limits of the budget. It wasn't the band responding to the audience, which I have seen artists do. It was artists trying to avoid getting slapped down again.

That's my two cents.

 

[The Wormhole]

Star Trek, in my opinion, has always been fairly unique. One of the things I really enjoyed about the Berman-Era of Trek was that... by and large (there are exceptions here and there), it didn't feel like "the 80's/90's IN SPACE" like many other sci-fi works from the time did. The general tone was unique in that it didn't focus on wars and conflicts was always unique... until such time as it began to.

Thing is, when I think of generic sci-fi, what I think of is remarkably similar to what Star Trek is. You got a spaceship said to be state of that art, though that can be ignored when relevant to the plot. The crew wear color-coded pajama like uniforms part of an organization claiming not to be military yet possessing military ranks, terminology and protocol, claiming to be on a mission of peace yet prepared to kick some serious ass dealing with aliens who are usually humans with funny foreheads. Which is basically what Star Trek is.

 

[evilchumlee]

Thing is, when I think of generic sci-fi, what I think of is remarkably similar to what Star Trek is. You got a spaceship said to be state of that art, though that can be ignored when relevant to the plot. The crew wear color-coded pajama like uniforms part of an organization claiming not to be military yet possessing military ranks, terminology and protocol, claiming to be on a mission of peace yet prepared to kick some serious ass dealing with aliens who are usually humans with funny foreheads. Which is basically what Star Trek is.

I see that as something trying to be Star Trek... I actually think that's fairly unique in the grand scheme of sci-fi.

 

[fireproof78]

Thing is, when I think of generic sci-fi, what I think of is remarkably similar to what Star Trek is. You got a spaceship said to be state of that art, though that can be ignored when relevant to the plot. The crew wear color-coded pajama like uniforms part of an organization claiming not to be military yet possessing military ranks, terminology and protocol, claiming to be on a mission of peace yet prepared to kick some serious ass dealing with aliens who are usually humans with funny foreheads. Which is basically what Star Trek is.

Yup, it tries to set this up without doing the same as Star Trek. So, in my opinion, that's as generic of sci-fi as it comes for such an idea, other than post-apocalyptic, or other such specific tropes.

Like I said, Stargate did it quite often and more successfully that Trek airing at the time.

 

[Fateor]

Yes, it is. That's my whole point. There wasn't the constructive side of it. Just loud voices saying "THis is bad!" And whenever something was changed they were not rewarded for it. Yeah, the whole business is extremely negative.

Let's look at the reality of that for a moment.

Discovery Season 1 Watchers: "The new Klingon look is terrible, you should change it back to the much less expensive and easier to act in type that was used in TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT."
Discovery production season 2: *Puts a bad wig on the terrible Klingon look and removes any texture from the makeup making it look even worse.*

Discovery Season 1 Watchers: "You shouldn't do all these galaxy ending threats that violate already established canon."
Discovery Production Season 2: *Ignores that to do another galaxy ending threat.*
Discovery Production Season 3: *Jumps the ship to the 32nd century and burns everything down out of spite so they can do three more seasons of galaxy ending threats.*

See, the thing about being rewarded for fixing a problem, is that to get that reward you actually need to fix the problem instead of doing something else and claiming "this is what you asked for".

 

[fireproof78]

Let's look at the reality of that for a moment.

Discovery Season 1 Watchers: "The new Klingon look is terrible, you should change it back to the much less expensive and easier to act in type that was used in TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT."
Discovery production season 2: *Puts a bad wig on the terrible Klingon look and removes any texture from the makeup making it look even worse.*

Discovery Season 1 Watchers: "You shouldn't do all these galaxy ending threats that violate already established canon."
Discovery Production Season 2: *Ignores that to do another galaxy ending threat.*
Discovery Production Season 3: *Jumps the ship to the 32nd century and burns everything down out of spite so they can do three more seasons of galaxy ending threats.*

See, the thing about being rewarded for fixing a problem, is that to get that reward you actually need to fix the problem instead of doing something else and claiming "this is what you asked for".

True.

Sometimes felt like Voyager.

 

[evilchumlee]

Let's look at the reality of that for a moment.

Discovery Season 1 Watchers: "The new Klingon look is terrible, you should change it back to the much less expensive and easier to act in type that was used in TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT."
Discovery production season 2: *Puts a bad wig on the terrible Klingon look and removes any texture from the makeup making it look even worse.*

I'll give them some credit for S2 Klingons. I don't think they were in a position to 100% revamp what they had, so they kind of had work with the tools available. But they did clearly make an effort.

After the whole Klingon kerfluffle, it's mind boggling that they then included a Ferengi for like 5 seconds in S3 that was basically "Oh you didn't like when we randomly changed how aliens look. Yeah. Well. Fuck you."

But at at the same time... S3 also included a Lurian... that just a straight up Morn looking dude...

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

After the whole Klingon kerfluffle, it's mind boggling that they then included a Ferengi for like 5 seconds in S3 that was basically "Oh you didn't like when we randomly changed how aliens look. Yeah. Well. Fuck you."

It was all part of a cunning plan to get Discovery haters to throw their support at Picard when the guy with the incredibly faithful Ferengi makeup job eventually turned up and looked really good.

Either that or their makeup team just liked doing their own thing and no one told them to knock it off.

 

[evilchumlee]

It was all part of a cunning plan to get Discovery haters to throw their support at Picard when the guy with the incredibly faithful Ferengi makeup job eventually turned up and looked really good.

It's a testament to how good Picard was, in being able to take the issues with Discovery and fix them.

"But the Klingon makeup is old and outdated."

Worf shows up. Looks like Worf. Is perfectly fine.

"The Ferengi wouldn't work, it was 90's makeup!"

Ferengi shows up. Looks awesome.

 

[fireproof78]

It shows that surface details are all that matters.

Mores the pity.