“Jean-Luc Picard is back”: will new Picard show eclipse Discovery?
- Thread starter Groppler Zorn
- Start date
Seeing more of the Enterprise E (whether he's captain or not) is a more exciting prospect but I'm sure they'll find a way to mess that up.
The Enterprise-E. Considering none of the TNG movies except for FC were any good, it's hard to see what there is to mess up.
I enjoyed FC and Nemesis. I'm talking about the ship in general.
Lets hope they fit with the atheistic.
I think there's a good chance there's no ship at all -- or at least not in the way we think of the traditional 'main lead ship'.
According to my timeline the next Klingon episode is no less then three months after "Errand of Mercy". But you're correct about "Elaan of Troyius"; I got "The Day of the Dove" about a year and a half after "Errand of Mercy".
"Day Of The Dove" (TOS) explicitly takes place three years after "Errand Of Mercy" (TOS)—of course, I suppose we could say those are Klingon years if we like—and Kang claims they have honored the peace treaty during that time (but maybe he just means he and his own crew have):
KANG: For three years, the Federation and the Klingon Empire have been at peace. A treaty we have honored to the letter.
(We could readily say this is another part of the delusion the entity has planted in his mind, too, though.)
-MMoM
KANG: For three years, the Federation and the Klingon Empire have been at peace. A treaty we have honored to the letter.
(We could readily say this is another part of the delusion the entity has planted in his mind, too, though.)
-MMoM
Last edited:
Welp, I can't work with that
It's roughly two years, I canna give you more Cap'n!
I edited in just before you replied that we could also say this is part of the entity's implanted delusion. Other things said in the same scene clearly were.Welp, I can't work with that
However, while I am admittedly about to fall asleep...I'm not seeing at the moment a good reason why it can't work out. I know people like to rely on the Okudas' scheme because it was "official" at the time, but it already clearly needs to be modified anyway, based on subsequent onscreen references like "Trials and Tribble-ations" (DS9) and "Q2" (VGR). 5YM ended 2270, but dating of most episodes relative to each other is generally pretty open and ambiguous—especially given that they were aired in a different order than they were produced in—so all the more reason to make the most use of what specific internal references there are. This one might actually help make sense of some others...but I'm not sure, I'll have to get into it further tomorrow when rested...
-MMoM
Well, my timeline is stardate and novel based so I'm really not lacking timeline informationI edited in just before you replied that we could also say this is part of the entity's implanted delusion. Other things said in the same scene clearly were.
However, while I am admittedly about to fall asleep...I'm not seeing at the moment a good reason why it can't work out. I know people like to rely on the Okudas' scheme because it was "official" at the time, but it already clearly needs to be modified anyway, based on subsequent onscreen references like "Trials and Tribble-ations" (DS9) and "Q2" (VGR). 5YM ended 2270, but dating of most episodes relative to each other is generally pretty open and ambiguous—especially given that they were aired in a different order than they were produced in—so all the more reason to make the most use of what specific internal references there are. This one might actually help make sense of some others...but I'm not sure, I'll have to get into it further tomorrow when rested...
-MMoM
By Vanguard lore "Errand of Mercy" is grounded on March 23, 2267 and the novel One Small Step establishes "Day of the Dove" as happening last month. Due to its stardate (5726.4) One Small Step falls into roughly October of 2268, thus "Day of the Dove" ends up in September. I'll go with "part of the delusion" then 
Come on. It's 2018, the second year of Trump. Having a popular franchise being led by a black woman as the main character IS going to be both noticeable and a defining trait of the series - a good one - because shit like this is still so rare. Even if in-series they never make a point about it (which they really shouldn't). It's the same with Uhura simply being there on a bridge full of people in charge in TOS - she might not have had the spotlight Michael got. But representation still matters.
The problem is that the character beneath her outer appereance isn't that well defined, and basically overstuffed with too many and widely different backstories. IMO they should have focused on writing compelling dialogue first, and then introduce her backstorie(s) later on, when they knew how to writer her. Instead we got a biiiiig infodump in the beginning (which, honestly, actually did nothing for me), and then during the run of the season - when she actually was actually allowed to make her own decision and choices - the character became more clearly defined. Sadly in concurrence with the season arc delving into utter schlock...
The problem is IMO: For this character to work, they always need a pretty normal POV character to contrast with. Spock really works best in combination with Kirk, Seven with Janeway (or the Doctor), Odo when he's contrasted with Quark (who's not POV, but pretty straightforward in his motivation and actions).
There is always one character that is prett simple, straightforward. Not necessary a cliché, but definitely an archetype, with a few defining traits with whom you can immediately identify, and through whose eyes we got to know the outsider characters and his various traits and the world around them.
IMO that should have been Michael Burnham. Without her whole backstory baggage - just a competent Starfleet officer. That would have been a perfect window for us to this new universe. And then witness her big mistake, and her redemption arc. And maybe put more focus on Saru as the outsider character. He's the secret break-out outsider character anyway IMO.
And Michael Burnham as the main (and POV) character makes a lot more sense if you can immediately identify with her.
Totally agree. Although I’d have preferred a view screen instead of a window
(I know it was a metaphor I just wanted to make a viewscreen joke!
)Totally. Saru was one of the most compelling characters for me in s1. I hope he becomes captain after Pike leaves.
Agreed. This is why I think Tilly should replace Michael as the main character whose eyes we see the DSC world through. She is way more relatable than Michael is - as a slightly awkward and overly excitable outsider (essentially). I can relate to Tilly. I still can’t relate to Michael. I understand very little of what her character does or says. Maybe the more time she spends with Tilly the more Tilly’s personality will rub off on her.
I'm pretty sure Sylvia Tilly's the character you're looking for, she's clearly in my mind our audience gateway character we can most identify with, and she's also Michael's roommate and protege so those two get fairly close. She's who you can see experiencing wonder and excitement like you would as a viewer, and I feel she plays very well with Michael and together they get that dynamic you're talking about.
I'm pretty sure Tilly is the audience surrogate for the socially awkward nerd-type of audience. Like, say, Geordi LaForge was. Or, in a way, Spock back in the day. That doesn't mean she fullfills this position for general viewers as well. The mainstream POV was clearly intended to be Michael Burnham - it just didn't work right out of the gate because we were bombarded with too much backstory right away, instead of getting to know the character based on her own actions.
Oh, I enjoyed the characters, but this was on the basis of the actors' performances. Their actions in the show made no sense, particularly in Act 2.
- Micheal had the start of a great character arc in Act 1. She was coming out of the emotional straitjacket being raised Vulcan gave her, was confronting her fear of Klingons, and becoming accepted by the crew. All of this was forgotten about entirely in Act 2 until the last 20 minutes or so of the finale. The theme of Act 2 was mostly emotionally torturing Burnham, with Lorca, Ash/Voq, and MU Georgiou all jerking her around.
- Saru was intriguing in Act 1. In Act 2 he basically became "the XO." Due to Doug Jones' masterful performance he shone, but there was nothing really to his character in the final six episodes.
- They completely destroyed Lorca as a character in What's Past is Prologue for no good reason. Don't get me wrong - I was fine with the idea of him being from the MU - the betrayal - even that he had to die. But they could have made him at least a bit more nuanced than a mustache-twirling villain. They could have made him "light gray" by the standards of the Terran Empire - willing to accept nonhumans if they were willing to serve the empire loyally, for example - and generally seeking to reform the empire (while still being totally committed to authoritarian rule). It would have made the final confrontation much more bittersweet and adult seeming
- Stamets, as I said, basically faded into the background. His role was reduced to spore-based exposition and mourning gay man.
- While Tilly was a breath of fresh air as a character, what they did with her character was blatantly obvious shoehorning in order to make her relevant to the final arc. From the (admittedly amusing) "Captain Killy" to making her the spore expert who was in charge of treating Stamets while comatose. A cadet should not be at the center of absolutely everything. Her role in the show should have been mostly as Burnham's roommate and confidant.
- Ash got the most contrived plotline, but somehow he ended up with the best development at the end of the show. A friend of mine initially called him "captain blandsome" because he really didn't seem to have much initial use besides as the obvious love interest for Burnham. Yet I found myself more interested in him by the end of the last episode than any other member of the cast, because he had a legitimate arc (traumatized POW - putting his life back together - awakened sleeper agent - psychotic mess - weirdly centered individual who accepts who he is).
They really should have let the TNG cast have a movie which didn't fit into the dumb action-adventure format. I mean, none of the TOS movies other than TWOK were straight-up action adventure.
I think a TNG movie which was a thriller/murder mystery could have potentially been quite good.
I agree with this, and your post in general, but I think the appeal of Ash, like Stamets, is more due to the actor than the storyline he was given. Ash's arc is terribly broken at the narrative level, even deeply troublesome if you want to look at it that way. But I think he stands out because we leave him at an uncertain point where he could, in the future, be interesting, if the showrunners get their act together. The rest of the main characters end up either ruined (Lorca, Cornwell) or at a typical Star Trek status quo.
In my defense, the series was conceived in 2015/2016. I think the creators all have the same political leanings as I do, so it's safe to say I think we all thought Hillary Clinton would be President. So DSC was intended to be a Star Trek series of the Hillary Clinton Era. Which is why they tried so hard to forcibly say T'Kuvma's followers are like Trump Supporters... Then Trump actually got elected.
So, now, here we are.
Similar threads
