I thought it was such a dumb decision, but I got to admit that I liked Tilly more in the role than I had liked her before. She had been very annoying to me in the first two seasons, but I liked her as first officer as well as her relationship with Saru, It didn't make sense for her to be in the job, but I liked her in it. After that, my teeth don't grate whenever Tilly appears on screen anymore.
Discovery ending with Season 5
- Thread starter The Habs Fan
- Start date
I thought it was such a dumb decision, but I got to admit that I liked Tilly more in the role than I had liked her before. She had been very annoying to me in the first two seasons, but I liked her as first officer as well as her relationship with Saru, It didn't make sense for her to be in the job, but I liked her in it. After that, my teeth don't grate whenever Tilly appears on screen anymore.
Good one ;-)
Look, there are different opinions regarding the control Kurtzman still has within the franchise. I know that my rant might have comprised of rather colorful depictions regarding his function in the Trek universe.
You’ll have to acknowledge though, that the fanbase has been split on the topic of Kurtzman’s course since he took the helm. People who like Discovery usually also like Kurtzman’s vision of the franchise. Even though we might have different opinions regarding his artistic involvement, i believe we can agree with the fact, that the “tone” the modern Star Trek streaming series tried to set, did in fact shift over the last few years.
Many people weren’t happy with the way Kurtzman initially envisioned the franchise. There were major adjustments within the different series. Picard S3 is the perfect example for this shift in tone, narration and political sovereignty of explanation.
In the end, it doesn’t matter if Kurtzman has beed sidelined, artistically blocked or unofficially fired. All that matters for us, who criticize the Kurtzman era is the fact that he obviously lost artistic influence within the franchise.
You guys create a boogeyman where none exists. Kurtzman and co had a simple mission: bring Star Trek back to television. In order for it to be successful it needed to adhere to certain standards that are now universal in television; so it’s no surprise initial shows were highly serialised and had an edge to them. That said, from the moment DSC aired, Kurtzman and his producers paid attention to what fans were saying and refined, redirected and flat out changed a great many elements. In fact, they did this too much so, in my opinion. S3 and S4 of DSC are among the most “Star Trekky” Star Trek ever created. To a fault almost.
This wasn’t a case of a person being “sidelined, artistically blocked or unofficially fired”. It was simply a creative team responding to feedback and adjusting accordingly. I mean, Geez, it’s Kurtzman that brought us the shows that even the Fandom Menace seem to tolerate if not flat out like, including SNW, Prodigy and Lower Decks. The constant demonisation of Kurtzman is pretty pathetic, IMO.
Nothing you said in this post or the previous one demonstrates any sort of credibility or knowledge about the production of Star Trek. People might not like the more recent Star Trek series, but the whole "woke" and Kurtzman angles are the laziest arguments for their lack of popularity, born of individuals who lack the intellectual rigor and genuine good faith concern to make better arguments.
The only shows he ever had creative influence over were Discovery (which he still does, he’s still co-showrunner) and Picard season 1 (and even that was very limited).
You’re really overplaying his involvement creatively of the entire franchise. He was never as influential as you’re implying.
He let the other shows do their own thing because he didn’t create them. It had nothing to do with him ‘losing influence’.
Lower Decks is a great example of this, it was Kurtzman who approached Mike on making a series inspired by his TNG Season 8 book/Twitter account.
Last edited:
I love the idea that it's a matter of "opinion" whether Kurtzman has been fired, rather than an objective reality that he remains the executive producer of all the series in production.
Discovery season four is an almost totally different show to Discovery season one, because it has an entirely different set of writers. To say it has had the same "tone" throughout is just garbage.
Discovery season four is an almost totally different show to Discovery season one, because it has an entirely different set of writers. To say it has had the same "tone" throughout is just garbage.
Interesting way to implicitly insult the intellect of people with different opinions. Intellectual rigor? Is that something, you usually engage in when discussing recreational media?
The „woke media“ debate is real, not because it is wrong to depict LGBT+ topics in tv shows, but due to the way, they get injected into the shows and thus artistically flaw the storytelling.
It was Kurtzmans decision to get Michelle Paradise on board. It was their decision to turn Disco into “one of television's queerest shows.“
Their main thought process when defining the series was:
„"'What kind of characters do we have?' 'Who else do we need?' 'What more do we need in visibility?' 'Who is not represented?' And those are...discussions that we have on a regular basis," says Paradise.“
And you are trying to tell me that this approach wouldn’t be a reason to artistically criticize the show? You still think people do that, because they lack „intellectual rigor“.. come on…
Again, helping the lgbtq community to deal with society‘s backwards fluency is important. To make it one of the main angles of character development will artistically flaw the show’s development. And this is on Kurtzman…
The „woke media“ debate is real, not because it is wrong to depict LGBT+ topics in tv shows, but due to the way, they get injected into the shows and thus artistically flaw the storytelling.
It was Kurtzmans decision to get Michelle Paradise on board. It was their decision to turn Disco into “one of television's queerest shows.“
Their main thought process when defining the series was:
„"'What kind of characters do we have?' 'Who else do we need?' 'What more do we need in visibility?' 'Who is not represented?' And those are...discussions that we have on a regular basis," says Paradise.“
And you are trying to tell me that this approach wouldn’t be a reason to artistically criticize the show? You still think people do that, because they lack „intellectual rigor“.. come on…
Again, helping the lgbtq community to deal with society‘s backwards fluency is important. To make it one of the main angles of character development will artistically flaw the show’s development. And this is on Kurtzman…
Nothing you said here is a bad thing. None of the LGBTQIA2S+ characters in Discovery detract from the show. They’re treated the same as the cis and straight characters
Seriously, the only time I can even remember a character's LGBTQ+ status being in focus within the narrative was when Stamets called Adira "her", and they simply asked him to use "they/them" instead, and that was it. Which is a completely ordinary situation that happens with nonbinary people all the time.
Why should this matter?
How else am I supposed to respond to people who think shows are bad because occasionally they depict gay people? What is the deep thought I'm missing here? How does having gay characters "artistically flaw" a show?
you intentionally keep misrepresenting my statements. Where did i say that shows with gay people are bad? There are many examples of lgbt centered movies and series which are great from a storytelling pov. The Last of Us is an excellent tv show, as is its way to portray lgbt relations. The difference is that, it never intended to become „the queerest show on tv“.
I don't see what is wrong with that.
I don't think TNG started out/was conceived as a family show per se; (and that's quite evident in a lot of stuff that they show and do in the first season), but as the seasons went on Berman & Co definitely turned it into one.
If you manage to produce a good tv show at the same time, nothing. If the agenda defines your casting choices, your storytelling and screen play instead of the best potential artistic approach it becomes an issue.
The search for lgbt actors playing lgbt characters requires relevant monetary and artistic resources. Since your pool of available actors is limited, when sticking to lgbt persons, there is a good chance that you might not end up with the best actors for the particular roles. Rapp is great at acting, Cruz is mediocre at best and del Barrio is essentially an amateur actor.
The showrunners even bragged about making the show especially queer, they might have archived that task but they failed to deliver a good sci fi story, which actually should have been their main concern…
In your opinion.
I think Discovery has some excellent scifi story telling. The sexual lives of the characters was rarely something I paid attention to, while aliens, humans managing trauma and tech seemed pretty good.
And basically all relevant audience centered polls…
Similar threads
