True, and it is a little frustrating that DSC couldn't simply be a 23rd-century show that has just a few vague references to TOS (just enough to tie it to the franchise). However, the second part of my post above I think could be the answer to why the showrunners felt the need to jump the series forward ~1000 years. It might be because they wanted to open up a whole new era in which they could set their own part of the franchise with multiple series, much like Berman Trek set up shop in the 24th century with three series. By jumping DSC forward, the show could act as that connection between the existing Trek universe and a new extended trek universe taking place in the 33rd century.
So you are somehow right about Section 31 where they were wrong about Discovery? How? I'll certainly watch it.
That is just symptomatic of the wasteful spending that is a hallmark of Discovery. They spend a lot more money than is necessary and then brag about it as if it's a virtue.
You strongly implied that those negative opinions about Discovery were ones you didn't share. You then linked my sec 31 show comment to them. Stop being a smart arse. You know what you did.
Yeah, I really hate watching movie-grade star trek on my TV every week. Its such an embarrassment of riches.
I really don't understand the bolded portion of this comment. Movies are not inherently better than TV. Hell, I'd argue just reading a book is superior to both, because books allow a lot more of the internal perspective of the characters which is impossible to get from any visual medium. That said, I'm not a visual thinker at all.
Well, considering this is an entirely visual medium discussion, maybe that's not the best time to interject?
No CBS all access Star Trek show will be worth making/watching until Kurtzman is gone. Michelle Paradise has proven to be useless too.
This is a personal preference point, but in a visual medium film has long be lauded due to the amount of money and resources that would be put in to it. The fact that TV has moved far more towards the larger production values of film, mostly due to improvements of technology, is considered a positive in the industry. Because of these improvements TV is regarded far more positively, with actors and actresses willing to move between both. The interesting comparison with books is the simple fact that the visuals come from our own mind, vs. a visual medium which requires acceptance of what the artist is putting forward to one degree or another.
When I read I just hear a voice in my head narrating the book. I do not see any mental images. Again, not much of a visual thinker. Mental imagining (outside of dreaming) is very, very had for me.
Depends on the book for me. But, the point still stands. There is a different level of acceptance of the construction of a book, i.e. the words, vs. the visual presentation which demands accepting more elements, such as the characters, design language, VFX, editing, etc.
Well we will see how hard the discoverse Picard series tanks, then we will see if they’re still at CBS destroying Star Trek for years to come....