News CBS All Access Wants Emmys For Star Trek: Discovery

[Graham]

Nothing makes me sadder to see fans (so-called?) of a franchise root actively against that franchise to achieve some recognition or success...

One thing that I find sadder than that is when a show sets out to alienate its own fanbase by deliberately vandalising its own franchise.

I don't see why ANYONE would not want that.

I don't wish Discovery success because I don't think it's worthy of being successful. It's lowered the bar, and if that lowering is rewarded then the bar will remain low and/or go lower in future.

What's the alternative? That we should root for it no matter how bad it is? No thank you.

 

[BillJ]

I don't wish Discovery success because I don't think it's worthy of being successful.

I wish it success because I want it to get better. They have a long way to go to win me over though.

 

[Graham]

I wish it success because I want it to get better. They have a long way to go to win me over though.

I hope you get your wish. For me, I don't think it's possible. Unless they had Tilly wake up realising that the whole show had been a dream, and walked out of her quarters to find herself on a real Constitution class ship in the real Prime timeline. But they're not going there, lol.

 

[Rahul]

I wish it would get better and then have more success as a direct result of it.

 

[Graham]

The difference is in the fan reaction to this fact. There have been those who have expressed support, hoping that it gets set on course and realizes it's potential as other Trek series have, and there are others who are not only content to pound away mercilessly at it, but seem hell-bent on hoping it burns as fast and painfully as possible.

*Raises his hand*

I always thought that option one is what "fans" of things do. I don't know why a fan of anything would hope for it to fail or be opposed to it receiving recognition. "I hate who my team took in the first round, and now we've started the football season 1-3 and the coach has made some bad decisions...man I hope these guys lose every single game going forward and the team moves to Wichita. And I'm going to be miserable about everything they do, even if they turn it around." Makes no sense. None.

Well the analogy doesn't quite work there, IMO. STD is not some beloved franchise that made a few mistakes and now I hate it. STD isn't the franchise at all - Star Trek is the franchise, and STD is just the latest version of it.

A more apt analogy might be that there was this club I loved. Man, the team was great! And they went away and a new team came along to play for the same club, and I loved them too. And this kept happening over and over. The teams didn't always play well, but I loved them anyway and all was good with the world.

But then a sixth team came along, and these people ran round the pitch scoring deliberate goals for the other side, fouling everyone, abusing the crowd, cheating - and all the while claiming they were a great team, and if you don't see that you're an idiot!

It's not the team I'm a fan of, it's the club and the previous great teams who brought credit to the club. The new team is just an embarrassment who shame the club and I wish they'd fire them all and hire a new and better team.

Maybe the new team has its own fans who think their shenanigans are hilarious and love them to bits. And okay, that's fair enough. But isn't it reasonable for a guy who is a fan of the club and loves the game to hate this new team?

I guess the difference for me is that I found a way to be entertained and see the potential despite the unevenness, and others just focus on the negative and can't get past it.

I originally gave up six episodes in. I'm giving it another try now, and I honestly can't see what there is to like about it. It's baffling to me, it really is. I see people saying the effects or costumes or acting is good, and I almost wonder if they are watching some other show.

 

[Rahul]

I respect a lot of your opposing opinions, you are generally very thoughtful.

...But this is some of the most outlandish and ridiculous shit I've read in a very long time.

DSC S1 was far from a gem....but it was infinitely better than the franchise's weaker moments. I think there's some SERIOUS bias laced in here.

It was formulated a bit drastic. But it is my opinion, and I stand by it.

Again: I love the characters of DIS, and wish to continue to see their (hopefully then better) adventures.

But, regarding the main plot of season 1, it's just the worst Star Trek has ever put out:
Originally, I suspected it would end like "The undiscovered country", where they have to defeat the evil klingon (Kor) and his (this time massive) main klingon ship, and at the same time restrain the Federations own warmongers (potentially Lorca). What happened was almost that, just WAY dumber:

The entire first half of the season was basically just a big set-up for the klingon war. We were always told there was this big war around. But none of the episodes was about actual war stories. Everything was basically regular TNG (or ENT), just with some snippets of space battles, and sometimes a line of dialogue saying there is a big war out there. But no-one acted like it. There were no consequences. No human stories. And then, when they returned to the mirror universe - they skipped the entire 9 month of war. AKA the main story of the season! They just time-jumped it. It felt completely wasted - nothing happened, no consequences, no development. Just being told "this is our new objective now".

They defeated Kor and the main klingon antagonist ship already at the season break. And then, when the show switched to the mirror universe, it turned into complete schlock: The enemy soldiers were purely mooks to be gunned down. The only solution presented to the fascist terrans was "blow 'em all up!" (again: this kill-all-badguys- approach is SO WRONG for Trek!), and then they had to save the entire fucking multiverse by destroying another, much bigger, Anime-looking ship and kill the mustache twirling badguy.

And then, in the biggest, dumbest plot point in Trek ever, we learn Kronos, the homeworld of the aggressive klingon Empire, can be entirely destroyed by a single handheld-device bomb from an alien colony on Kronos, where humans dont't stand out. And nobody cares that enemies of the klingon Empire can walk there. And it wasn't a special bomb or anything, literally ANYONE could have destroyed the klingon homeworld. Yet, despite the klingons bringing war to thousands of other species, apparently no one ever bothered to fight back... Or even just a single, random badguy using that fatal weakness against an entire Empire before...
Again, it was shit. Utter shit.


Here is what they should have done:

Not going full-out war. Don't do that if you're going to turn it into WWII in SPACE!!, and if you don't feel like giving exposition about the strengths of the different factions or the progress of the war anyway. Just have them at the brink of full-on massive war - a cold war with the first shots being fired, the first battle (at the binary stars) fought. And now everyone being anxious about going all-in, but both sides preparing for it.

Then focus on the characters. One small group. On one ship. Not the larger context of the universe. Just the single journey of redemption of Burnham, and the story of her new crewmates. Don't get her position re-instated for saving the fucking MULTIVERSE or ending the klingon war alone. That shit is ridiculous. But have her earn the respect of her crew back - maybe by saving the ship, or only her Captain or something. Or acting honorable when she cold have taken the easy way.

And then make her instrumental in cooling the situation with the klingons down - make her being a respected warriour by the klingons (maybe by defeating Kor), and thus showing the klingons that humans can be worthy warriours too. Thus giving them a reason to negotiate with us again, and Starfleet to re-instate her to a position where she can be present at first peace talks. And then ending with a fragile treaty - full war being averted, but the situation with the klingons still being tense for the next years.

And instead put the focus of the show on the characters. Not some battle scenes with bridge personal we know nothing about. But from the viewpoint of a grunt on the ground that can't do anything. Show a battle scene through the windows of her quarters, hearing the bridge dialogue through comm, her life depending on the outcome, but not being able to influence anything. And have the other characters, including the bridge crew, slowly recognize her again and start to re-integrate her into day-to-day decisions of the starship again.

You know, something smaller, a more intimate story, with more nuances. Not that comic-booky "SAVE THE UNIVERSE and DEFEAT THE BADGUY"-shit we actually got.God, I so hope for improvements for the next seasons... But I'm really not sure it can be achieved with the current writing staff...

 

[eschaton]

You know, something smaller, a more intimate story, with more nuances. Not that comic-booky "SAVE THE UNIVERSE and DEFEAT THE BADGUY"-shit we actually got.God, I so hope for improvements for the next seasons... But I'm really not sure it can be achieved with the current writing staff...

I 100% agree with you on how the season was executed. However, I lean towards not thinking the writers are really dumber than a bag of rocks any longer. Instead I think the issue, as I've said in other threads, is essentially that once Fuller departed, there was no real strong force left to push back against what CBS and the suits wanted. After all, it wasn't really a Berg/Harberts show, or even a Kurtzman show - it was no one's show in particular. Thus I think the writer's team was coming out with at least workmanlike plots, and someone higher up the food chain was basically instructing them to rewrite to continually up the stakes - in the misguided belief that raised stakes is what actually brings new viewers to the table.

 

[Rahul]

I 100% agree with you on how the season was executed. However, I lean towards not thinking the writers are really dumber than a bag of rocks any longer. Instead I think the issue, as I've said in other threads, is essentially that once Fuller departed, there was no real strong force left to push back against what CBS and the suits wanted. After all, it wasn't really a Berg/Harberts show, or even a Kurtzman show - it was no one's show in particular. Thus I think the writer's team was coming out with at least workmanlike plots, and someone higher up the food chain was basically instructing them to rewrite to continually up the stakes - in the misguided belief that raised stakes is what actually brings new viewers to the table.

That seems plausible...

 

[Mudd]

I didn't get "Trek Fan" tattooed on my ass when I was a teenager - I'm a fan of the versions I think are good, not so much when it's sucking as hard as STD.

 

[Jinn]

I didn't get "Trek Fan" tattooed on my ass when I was a teenager

You really missed out!

 

[dahj]

I didn't get "Trek Fan" tattooed on my ass when I was a teenager

Waited till midlife crisis?

 

[eschaton]

That seems plausible...

Another thing I've increasingly suspected is that Fuller might have had a pretty good plot arc worked out. However, once he departed, CBS might have forced them to scrap it. After all, if elements of his stories remained in the later episodes, he would probably get cowriting credit and they'd have to pay him more money. Alternatively, he could have been pissy and took his ball and went home, refusing to let them use some of the concepts that he was working on.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

I didn't get "Trek Fan" tattooed on my ass when I was a teenager.

I did, though it reads more like "T ----- r ----- e ----- k _____ F ----- a ----- n" now, and it has Star Treked into Darkness in The Final Frontrear a bit.

Maybe I should have waited and gotten "The Expanse Fan" instead, so it would be more meta.

 

[Mudd]

 

[CorporalClegg]

Some of these categories it may have had a shot at -- if we lived in a world without crowns and thrones.

 

[johnjm22]

The show can still be salvaged. In order to do so, they're going to have to take the focus off Burnham. It can't be her show. It won't work. It would be like having Geordi La Forge be the lead character of TNG.

I think when you create a show, you don't necessarily know which characters are going to turn out to be the most interesting or which story lines the most compelling. I think you have to change gears and shift to what's working. Saru and Stamets are easily the most interesting characters. Hopefully some of the new people they bring in will be as well.

 

[johnjm22]

I 100% agree with you on how the season was executed. However, I lean towards not thinking the writers are really dumber than a bag of rocks any longer. Instead I think the issue, as I've said in other threads, is essentially that once Fuller departed, there was no real strong force left to push back against what CBS and the suits wanted. After all, it wasn't really a Berg/Harberts show, or even a Kurtzman show - it was no one's show in particular. Thus I think the writer's team was coming out with at least workmanlike plots, and someone higher up the food chain was basically instructing them to rewrite to continually up the stakes - in the misguided belief that raised stakes is what actually brings new viewers to the table.

It definitely felt like season 1 had too many cooks in the kitchen, and they changed direction multiple times.

To me, it feels like Kurtzman is running the show now. Or is at least the most influential person behind the scenes. That should worry all of us.

 

[Awesome Possum]

One thing that I find sadder than that is when a show sets out to alienate its own fanbase by deliberately vandalising its own franchise.

In what way has it vandalized the franchise?

I don't wish Discovery success because I don't think it's worthy of being successful. It's lowered the bar, and if that lowering is rewarded then the bar will remain low and/or go lower in future.

What a toxic attitude. I hate it, so it has to go away! It's selfish and childish. You don't get a Star Trek exactly the way you wanted it, so you want no one to have a Star Trek at all.

What's the alternative? That we should root for it no matter how bad it is? No thank you.

Don't watch it. I don't like The Orville but I don't root for its failure. There are lots of shows I don't like, I just don't watch them and go about my life. I don't believe I'm entitled to have shows be exactly the way I want them, I just find ones I like and watch them. We have so many choices now that it should be easy for anyone to find a show that's almost catered to them.

 

[thribs]

And I want a million dollars. We can’t always get what we want.

 

[Graham]

In what way has it vandalized the franchise?

There's plenty of discussion around about that. Do we need to rehash it here? Discovery doesn't fit with the established Trek universe. It looks absolutely nothing like actual Star Trek of the time and place it claims to be set in. It's rewriting the history of some of the most beloved characters in the franchise. Hell, they even bastardised the real Enterprise. And why? They could have simply said "it's a reboot" or "it's a new Trek universe" and I'd have been fine with then doing whatever they wanted. But no. They continually insist that this is all happening alongside real Trek. And why? For what possible reason? The only thing that makes sense is that they insist on this because they want to override real Star Trek with this shit.

What a toxic attitude. I hate it, so it has to go away! It's selfish and childish. You don't get a Star Trek exactly the way you wanted it, so you want no one to have a Star Trek at all.

Except that I didn't say quite that. You changed what I said to make it sound worse.

What I said was, it is a bad show so I would prefer not to see it honoured. This seems like an uncontroversial attitude to me - doesn't everyone pretty much hope the good shows will win awards and the bad shows won't? Isn't that what awards are for?

Don't watch it.

I watched a few episodes hoping it would improve, then stopped. Recently several people convinced me to watch the rest of the season, assuring me that it got better (it didn't; actually it got worse), and telling me I had no right to criticise it if I didn't watch it. So I gritted my teeth and got through it. And now people tell me if I don't like it I shouldn't be watching it!

I don't like The Orville but I don't root for its failure. There are lots of shows I don't like, I just don't watch them and go about my life.

The Orville is its own thing. One can like it or not like it, and either way there is no larger context. Which is why I say above, if Discovery had decided to be its own thing, if they'd just called it 'Discovery' and not pretended that it was a Prime universe Star Trek show, I'd be fine with it. I'd still not care for it, because of the terrible story and unlikeable characters and wooden acting and horrific design aesthetic and poor special effects, but at the end of the day it would just be another bad show to be ignored, just as you say.

But they chose to put the words "Star Trek" on it for whatever reason, and then they chose to make the claim that it's set inside the existing Prime universe for some reason. That places a series of expectations onto a show - and having established those expectations, they then decided to do pretty much everything they could to screw them over. And there is nothing accidental about this, it is being done on purpose, for reasons that escape my comprehension.

But to me, it feels like an act of spite. My impression is that what is being done is being done on purpose to deliberately harm the Star Trek franchise. Hence my use of the word "vandalism".