Do the Midnight's Edge roundtable participants make legitimate points for Discovery's weaknesses, or are they overlooking "similar" issues with TOS? Is there a line within continuity and canon that is fair or are the Discovery showmakers trying to copy a certain style TOS had in terms of continuity?
The best summary one participant said was "Star Wars may be in a galaxy far far away but Trek is about being the best one can be." and how the show makers are turning Star Trek into Star Wars...?
Yes, it's over two hours long. No, they aren't parroting other "youtube celebs"' vernacular like parrots and it's mostly engaging. And refreshing, their level of maturity.
Yes, they're right on Trek doing better at establishing characters and details whereas Star Wars is a lot simpler where it's good vs evil and the backdrops for anything aren't discussed (another example of sci-fi vs fantasy). No, I don't buy his Wookie and Q comparison since Q was explained in VOY and everyone hated it... and Chewbacca did get origins and civilization laid out in a certain 1978 special that, you guessed it, everyone loved loathing...
Yes, SW is fast action and Trek is slow (didn't stop the TNG movies from becoming rabid, continuity wasting action flicks...)
Yes, television has gotten more intricate and deeper since the 1960s. No, the makers don't seem to be taking advantage of it if so many glaring plot holes are glossed over, especially as this is a prequel where it should be easier to have none fitting out of place since long-time fans will notice and casual viewers are going to presume it will all match up and aren't going to care about the 53 year old original version.
Yes, I bought into the Star Wars is a fairy tale and Trek shouldn't be.
Which reminds me of a tangent - Yes, Star Wars characters have names that are the embodiment of shallow sledgehammer tactics - And no, Trek's audience isn't a group of 5 year-olds and can handle more complex, nuanced dialogue and situations, so thankfully Trek names and situations aren't as lame or oversimplified caricatures?
Yes, if he wants to show optimism with meaningful stories that's great. No, it's not like previous showrunners didn't feel the same way or seen a poor jumbling up of canon and sometimes in inexplicably weird ways. Well, apart from some season 1 TNG...
Yes, the group got the trio's definition right (McCoy emotion vs Spock logic vs Kirk balance). No, Kurtzman did not get it right because it was "the big three show" and not "the dynamic duo show" with Kirk being the emotion - Kirk had emotions but he was the balance, anyone seeing even a single episode understands what the trio represents because they showed it all the time. Especially in a prequel, there has to be a layout and not use any character willy nilly without a plan and until the plan is shown, people can only think that the characters are written out of character so people who like the saga.
Yes, he admits he likes Star Wars more. No, that's not a problem a long as he writes Star Trek the way Star Trek is and he said he liked Trek so he knows what makes it work? What next, Xon is written in and does go-go dances on the 1960s planet that has rings comprised of big magic mushrooms because it'll generate more laughs than even the most gross-out episode of "Orville" had but thankfully DSC is shown 30 minutes ahead of time? This isn't "Lost in Space" either! Characters have archetypes and still have to correspond within those reasonably and convincingly. Again, it's fiction vs fantasy. Fantasy allows anything for no reason other than "We can have them do anything with them!" (So did Dark Helmet from Spaceballs but his action figure play made for a more compelling spinoff...)
Yes, the red angel is cool. No, the magic red angel isn't summoned by a bunch of kids who won a candy bar mail-in contest chanting a ditty the way the Ikonians didn't, nor is it Spock being the red magic angel traveling in time to fix up all sorts of inconsistencies and anomalies as if he's his own Sam Beckett, sans Al Calavicci (that's a little too convoluted but I'm sure the audience would laugh as the show is trying to outdo "The Orville" now... the fact is, if it is the Prime timeline, it's their own Prime timeline in a different incarnation of spacetime? It still fits into Kelvin's universe far better)
Yes, IDIC is a concept. No, it doesn't mean the makers do anything freely with any old reference or name without depth or straying from Trek's uniqueness and hide behind it - not in this day and age of more sophisticated scripting. Otherwise let's go to other shows and reboot them doing everything different or even antithetical to their premise and then shift the blame those shows' fans for not liking how apocryphal the show has become in the name of change? Adama from BSG - make him just like Al Bundy and his superior can be Peg Bundy because everyone will tune in for that! But not they're not running from Cylons, they're working in a fast food restaurant and dealing with weekly villains that make William Foster look like Wimpy Smurf by comparison! Or replace Al and Peg Bundy with Ward and June Cleaver...
