Why the hate for Disco?

Prodigy doesn't have a release date yet, but Lower Decks Season 2 is coming out August 12.

Presuming they don't want any overlap, they're going to have to start Prodigy on October 21. Then, if runs for 10 weeks, they can barely get Discovery's fourth season to start in the last week of December.

 

Damn. I knew he also quit those projects, but...

Nothing for it then. I wish the producers had kept his roadmap, however much there was. I kind of understand what happened, but they also did it to themselves. Of course the also (seemingly) sidelined Meyer and then got themselves fired, so...

I don't know that I "trust" Tarantino either, think that's why I wanted him.

I just assumed Orci/Kurtzman lost confidence because fans and press alike wouldn't shut up about Khan. But I was also defending them when I assumed that. In the aftermath of Amazing Spider-Man 2, I think they're just better for the (occasional) high concept then they are with sticking around and growing something. And perhaps Abrams as well, who I think is a good director but not a storyteller.

Prodigy is a definite catch-up-after-you've-(re)subscribed for me, unless I hear something truly amazeballs.

I miss them just meeting up in space, not even close enough for visual contact. But it's probably unrealistic to expect most prequels to resist temptation to show everything. That or I've seen too many prequels.

 

Daaaaaaaaaaaamn. LDS is my favorite Kurtzman Trek and yet... this lineup doesn't leave me eager to join back up at all. I may have to binge this stuff (or not?) when STP comes back around.

 

Well, count me as one.

I don't know if you do, not to belabor an old point. I think Starfleet showcased to Sarek both what Vulcans feared humans would be, as well as what a terrible side it brought out in him. It then was added on to by the fact that both his son, and ward joined and ended up caught up in a lot of conflict. For me it is not a far stretch for Sarek to become even more anti-Starfleet after the war.

Well, my concern is that it would be largely a self-important project for him where he deigns to give his blessing to Star Trek. I don't find it a good fit.

Well, Damon Lindelof didn't help matters either and also wouldn't shut up about Khan.

Someday I'll get around to doing a full analysis of a lot of prequel problems I see. For me, a prequel should give a reframing of a scene or moment for something; an "Oh, I didn't realize" type of insight for the audience. Case in point is Sarek-his distancing from Spock is not just sulking but actually a deeper pain regarding what he tried to do for his children only for them all to be lost to him, estranged, off world, or time traveling. Rogue One does a similar job for A New Hope. "This is our most desperate hour" takes on new potency after watching the Battle of Scarif.

Unfortunately, what prequels often feel the need to do is connect everything single dot no matter what. See Anakin building C3PO, the list of most decorated captains, and how Enterprise approached many different things. Instead of allowing for subtlety and insight there is simply referencing a lot of different pieces that don't necessarily add to the story.

This probably has had way more analysis but I still find it so interesting to watch how these are prequels get unpacked.

 

I liked Faces, Dreadnought, Day of Honor, Extreme Risk, Lineage...

 

While reading through some of the comments some thoughts came to mind:

-I don't think DISCO jumping to the future is playing it safe. I think it's the opposite. I think trying to squeeze the series right before TOS was far safer (as was making Burnham Spock's sister, the very design of the Starship Discovery, doing a war with the Klingons, returning to the Mirror Universe, and even in season 2 with Pike, Spock, and Number One as well as bringing in Section 31. These were all things I think CBS thought would endear older fans to the series). If they had done a future series from jump it would've required a lot more world building and potentially even more expensive sets and effects as they had to create cool looking future technology. Even if we had started off with the series in the 32rd century I imagine there would've been concerns that veteran fans would not be as enthused to see the "Emerald Chain" as opposed to the familiar Klingons as the enemy.

-I think it's complicated to say that old fans don't want something new or different. Many old fans are often expressing that view, but of course it means different things for different people, and sometimes you don't know you wanted or will like something until you do. So to me it comes down to execution. The concept of a junior officer being the main character was different but I don't think the writing, the weight of the franchises' history which put the captain characters first, and that expectation from many fans, allowed the idea to really catch on in the way CBS hoped IMO. I have long felt that Burnham, on another series, would've been a potential breakout outsider character (Spock, Worf, Data, Odo, Seven, The Doctor, T'Pol, even Trip, etc.) and they didn't know how to realize that so they pretty much turned her into a captain-character almost right off the bat. Now I do think they've done a good job in fleshing out Burnham and giving her character and arc and a journey, so that's been successful, even if a bit awkwardly executed at times. The downside is that Trek fandom, and arguably other genre fandoms, have grown used to space opera ensembles (Star Wars, The Expanse, Babylon 5, Andromeda, Firefly, Stargate SG-1, you name it), and they've been less successful keeping the series revolving around Burnham while giving the other characters development. It's gotten better each season, but still needs a lot of work. And the nature of the storytelling for CBS Trek, with the one or two big stories a season put plot over character which further crimps their ability or space to develop an ensemble. Comparatively, the older Trek series all had longer seasons which allowed them to dedicate an episode or two to almost every main cast member every season. DISCO and PIC don't have that luxury. Instead they've banked on Burnham being such a dynamic character, rooted deep in Trek's history, and Picard, well, being Picard, to sell their respective series, come what may. I think Lower Decks has done a much better job building an ensemble series, but then again, that might have been the intention from the start as opposed to what DISCO and PIC intended.

-Another thing I was thinking about was the idea that other series are taking risks that Trek isn't or out-Trekking Trek, and I think about how series like Farscape and The Expanse are popular, among sci-fi fans, but do they have the reach or longevity of Star Trek? Even though I think Farscape and The Expanse are sometimes better written than DISCO and PIC, but not better made than DISCO, Star Trek (no matter the franchise entry) is still a much bigger, more popular brand. Granted, I don't know if the average person would know Burnham from James Holden, but they might be more familiar with the trappings of DISCO than they would any other sci-fi series except Star Wars. I would also contend that DISCO has taken some risks. It was risky to do a series only 10 years before TOS, to give Spock a sister we had never heard of, and a war with the Klingons we hadn't heard of either, and to visually make everything look so different (and I'm thinking risky in terms of getting old Trek fans on board), and it's also risky to jump to the future (more from a creative and budgetary standpoint), but I can't blame them for seemingly listening to some fan complaints and trying to create a series that will be as entertaining as they can make it.

 

B'Elanna had a lot of good episodes. For the sort of middling role she often played in the series Roxann Dawson got some really meaty material to work with.

 

Any changes would have been accepted far easier. Going to the future is safer from canon and fan outrage than a prequel.

 

I'm not saying they wouldn't have been, though I'm not saying they would have been either. I can imagine that the creators would be concerned about how old fans might feel about totally new villains (or somewhat new villains, owing that the Orions have never been big on Trek unfortunately; by the 24th century we didn't even see any-that I recall-even in the syndicate that bore their name; the Andorians fared much better on ENT but I imagine the suits would consider that a failed series). How well did fans take the Suliban or Xindi? While I liked both-the Xindi more than the Suliban-I think that if there was trepidation about going totally, or almost, new with villains that it would be a harder sell for fans because that would be one less nostalgia button to push. Star Wars has grappled with that issue as well, largely unable to escape going back to the Empire or the Sith (even if they rename them the First/Final Order or the Knights of Ren).

Though some fans have long griped about the Klingons being overexposed, they have been pretty reliable foils for each Trek series pre-DISCO (though with logically smaller doses in VOY). And the idea of selling a big war with an enemy Trek fans knew and seemingly revered would be an easier sell. Plus there would be a lot less leg work to establish the Klingons. Many Trek fans, as well as non-fans, had heard of the Klingons already.

Regrettably the challenge of creating and establishing a new enemy that could one day perhaps become revered or respected like some other Treks had done was not something of interest or ability for DISCO's writers. I think of how off hand they treated the Emerald Chain even in Season 3. They wasted a great opportunity to explore the Orions and Andorians and see how they changed since the 22-24th centuries.

 

Yeah, branching away from the familiar is problematic across the board. But, what I have observed with fans that any sort of change to familiar elements is more welcome when there is a bigger time gap.

 

I agree with you there. That's why I wish that DISCO had just been set in the 25th century from jump. That would've taken away some of the fan griping and angst and allowed the series to be judged on its merits, or lack thereof. Very little about the series needed to be changed, outside of Burnham being Spock's sister. The basic story could've been set at almost any time period after first contact with the Klingons.

Placing DISCO in the 25th century or beyond, even the changes with the Klingons could've been more easily accepted to me or people would've had more patience to see what the creators came up with to explain the visual differences.

 

Well, I doubt patience would have extended in any regard but I appreciate the idea.

 

Exactly. Thry advanced the tech snd uniforms were it looked more advanced then tng. They just should have set it in the future at the beginning. The stories still would have sucked but it would have been far away enough from the original shows were I wouldnt have cared as much.

 

There was very little reason to put DISCO in the 23rd century, and a mere 10 years before TOS no less besides CBS hoping to stoke nostalgia. If anything putting the series where they made it a weaker series, less able to stand on its own. I think CBS was hoping to hedge its bets when it came to DISCO and that's why I think Burnham was made Spock's sister, out of the belief it would make her instantly important to Trek fans, but it seems like a lot of their fan service or attempts at fan service triggered more older fans than thrilled them.

Very little would've been lost having Burnham be the adopted daughter of say Tuvok, Selar, or even Saavik. Granted Spock wouldn't be her sibling, but that also means there would be no controversy over it either. Having the Klingons become isolationists for a century works better in the 25th/26th century than in the TOS time, because that contradicts what Spock said in Star Trek VI about the contentious relations between the Federation and Klingons; further it seems strange that the big destructive war only about a decade before TOS is never mentioned on TOS or TAS. Would not Kor have gloated or taunted Kirk about it in "Errand of Mercy" or Korax in "The Trouble with Tribbles"? The Mirror Universe stories, if they had wanted to go that route, wouldn't have been affected that much either. It's easy to buy that sometime after DS9 that the Terran Empire was reborn.

They would've had a much freer hand, and as you were saying the starships and tech looked more futuristic than TOS or even some Berman Trek. Heck it looks about on the same level as PIC (and I like DISCO's production values and production design way better than PIC).

As it stands, while I do think the writing and character development could be better, I don't think the stories suck necessarily. I do wish they could bring their arcs home more satisfyingly.

 

The decision to place Disco in the 23rd century and a decade prior to TOS was made by Fuller, not CBS. His reason for that was because there was a line from a TOS episode he wanted to expand on and make a TV series around it, though it's not clear what that line is since when he left, the other writers did not follow through with that intent.

The Mirror Universe wasn't part of Fuller's original intent. In his outline, Lorca was from an alternate reality where the Battle of the Binary Stars turned out differently and Michael was hailed as a hero due to those events, which is why Lorca would be so interested in giving our Michael a second chance. But then he left and the other writers, previously unfamiliar with Trek Lore were looking over Trek Lore and upon stumbling upon the Mirror Universe were all "hey, wait a minute, there's an evil alternate universe they visited in the other shows, let's use that."

 

I'm fine with Disco in the 23rd century because we're getting Strange New Worlds out of it. It seems CBS is bent on doing 23rd century so if Discovery didn't do it they would've done it on another show. I think they were trying indirectly to build what was done in the Kelvin films, which were all 23rd century.

 

Leaving the advancement of special effects during the last few decades aside, i would guess if you showed a novice, who knows nothing about Trek, clips of TNG Season 1 and Disco (from both time periods of the show), and just mentioned that a part of the clips is set during the 32nd century that the noob would think TNG S1 is set at this time instead of Disco because of the futurism and the way humanity is portrayed in this part of the show

 

Aside from market indicators of what would sell.

 

It always comes down to that, doesn't it?

 

Technological trends go backwards even in real life. If you showed Halo 2 and Minecraft side by side to someone, you'd think Halo 2 was the more modern game when it's really the other way around.