Spoilers A lack of uplifting optimism and cerebral stories will kill this show

[Smoked Salmon]

It is one thing for JJ Trek to get away with mass action blockbusters that appeal to the mainstream summer audience, but this is Trek on TV and needs to stick to the core principles that has made Trek because it needs to sustain itself for many episodes. So far the show has not done that. It has 13 episodes to show us it can rise out of the dreary, dark world of war, and become a show about exploration and inspiration. If it does not then I predict it will end after the already paid for second season.

Star Trek is hope.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Star Trek has never been cerebral (save for maybe the first film). It's pseudo intellectual party favor. Which is fine. And you can do that in grimdark I'm sure they'll try at some point.

But yeah. Hour after hour of dour and dour will grow tiresome rather quickly.

 

[Smoked Salmon]

Star Trek has never been cerebral

I respectfully disagree. I think people tend to conflate cerebral with highly intellectual.

Trek always gave you something to think about at it's best. That means it had a cerebral quality.

 

[Relayer1]

It has 13 episodes to show us it can rise out of the dreary, dark world of war, and become a show about exploration and inspiration.

I've had my fill of exploration with TOS, TNG, Enterprise and Voyager.

It doesn't have to be an unrelentingly depressing war show all of the time, but no more planet of the week stuff please.

 

[SPCTRE]

oh, there's the C-word

disgonbgud.gif

 

[Smoked Salmon]

I've had my fill of exploration with TOS, TNG, Enterprise and Voyager.

It doesn't have to be an unrelentingly depressing war show all of the time, but no more planet of the week stuff please.

I don’t think you perhaps grasp what the words “Star Trek” mean. There’s got to be some exploration otherwise it ceases to be Trek (and before anyone says it, DS9 has plenty of exploration off the station).

 

[CorporalClegg]

I respectfully disagree. I think people tend to conflate cerebral with highly intellectual.

Trek always gave you something to think about at it's best. That means it had a cerebral quality.

See. I don't get that. When Star Trek is at it's best, it keeps its concept at face value. It's very on-the-nose about ideas and philosophies. It lends itself well to open discussion and debate (See: The Trek Bulletin Board System) but don't really encourage interpersonal thought. But that debate often comes across as scripted because it so often feels like the points are being presented on autopilot ... just as they were presented in the show.

A Star Trek "thinking" episode presents an idea, gives some thoughts about it, and then draws a conclusion. And fans either agree or disagree. And spend years--decades--debating about it on the interwebz.

But those ideas aren't prone to fester and marinade and promote interpersonal dialog the way a good art film or novel might. Heck, I think films like The Matrix and Inception--Heck, even The Wizard of Oz--encourage more self discovery than any episode of Star Trek. But, as I said, the one exception might be TMP as its concept is so existential on a personal level.

 

[Gepard]

The first half of "The Vulcan Hello" was a lot of fun. The chemistry amongst the Shenzhou crew was good -- Saru was a hoot. It went downhill in the second half, though, and kinda fell apart completely in the next episode. I'm annoyed that they killed Captain Georgiou and broke up the Shenzhou crew because I thought they were all very likable. I'd much rather have had a series with them flying about examining wondrous space doodads than what the show looks like it's trying to be.

The Discovery crew could end up being fun and interesting as well, but there's no way to know because we haven't seen them in context yet. A friend of mine tried to sell a TV pilot a few years ago and one of the main pieces of feedback he got was that you can't delay introducing your entire main cast and the primary setting of the show past the first episode. You have to hook your audience with what the series will actually be instead of pulling a bait-and-switch. I wish we had seen the Discovery and Captain Lorca in action this week because I still don't know what to expect from this show tonally.

 

[Relayer1]

I don’t think you perhaps grasp what the words “Star Trek” mean. There’s got to be some exploration otherwise it ceases to be Trek (and before anyone says it, DS9 has plenty of exploration off the station).

Oh yeah, but DS9 had markedly less planet of humanoids with a cultural quirk (and different nose bump) stories, having ongoing sociopolital arcs. It's that I want from Discovery. Not Voyager.

I trust they'll still be visiting the edge of known space on occasion...

 

[cultcross]

I didn't get "lack of optimism" from the show at all. There was certainly a war, and it certainly was a major plot point, there's no denying. Would I rather there wasn't one, and it was more like the first half of "The Vulcan Hello"? Sure. But I didn't get 'pessimistic' from what followed. If anything, Burnham's 'DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMED' approach was presented as categorically wrong, and expressed as such by several characters. I definitely get the impression that we as the audience were invited to view her racist assumptions as ethically wrong even though she was factually correct. Her Captain was going full on Star Trek "We uphold our principles even if it means dying for them". There was no Admiral Adama jumping away from the sublight fleet in this episode.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Maybe. But Georgiou definitely did her stab at the intentionally ironic "Does anybody remember when we were explores?" cliche that I think every captain to date has said.

 

[BillJ]

Star Trek is hope.

No. It isn't. It is a vehicle to make money, always has been. Right now? Dark makes money.

 

[Michael]

Ask ten Trekkies what Star Trek is and you get twenty different answers. So I disagree with the premise that Discovery is not “what Star Trek is about”. Different folks are looking for different things in it. I'm not convinced that “Star Trek is hope” is really what would ensure Discovery's success.

A friend of mine tried to sell a TV pilot a few years ago and one of the main pieces of feedback he got was that you can't delay introducing your entire main cast and the primary setting of the show past the first episode.

The thing is, though, that Michael Burnham seems to be the main cast member in the center of the show. Introducing her seems to be the priority.

 

[Smoked Salmon]

No. It isn't. It is a vehicle to make money, always has been. Right now? Dark makes money.

Well of course you know better. Should have known. Glad to have been corrected.

 

[cultcross]

The thing is, though, that Michael Burnham seems to be the main cast member in the center of the show. Introducing her seems to be the priority.

I think they are making it very clear through their choices that this is a show about Burnham, not, as Trek has been in the past, a show about a Starship, or an ensemble cast.

 

[Spider]

I think they are making it very clear through their choices that this is a show about Burnham, not, as Trek has been in the past, a show about a Starship, or an ensemble cast.

I hope this isn't the case, because her character isn't interesting enough to me to be the focus of the show.

 

[cultcross]

I don't think it will be the only thing we see, certainly, but I'm expecting much more focus on her than on any single Trek character since Kirk.

 

[Mudd]

My feeling since 1992 has been that every new version of Trek should have at least the working title: Star Trek: You Can't Kill It With A Stick.

This show will not die for several years no matter how poorly fans think it's doing. We can all think of TV shows we don't like or don't consider to be good that continue on year after year. I've noticed, for example, a lot of antipathy in fandom to The Big Bang Theory.

 

[BillJ]

Well of course you know better. Should have known. Glad to have been corrected.

Life is what it is. CBS is chasing dollars, just as Paramount was before them, and Desilu and NBC were before them.

Star Trek isn't some public charity or think tank, it is intellectual property used to generate revenue. If they thought they could make a shitload of money we would have Will Ferrell/Jack Black buddy comedy Star Trek movies and episodes.

Some fans want to pat themselves on the back because they think they are watching something intellectual and meaningful to the world.

I've noticed, for example, a lot of antipathy in fandom to The Big Bang Theory.

My wife loves the show, and she's going to watch Young Sheldon as well. Me? It just doesn't do anything for me.

 

[ewoodcourt]

I think this is a big assumption to make after only two episodes. Who says there won't be uplifting and cerebral stories as the show goes on?