Discovery ending with Season 5

[Sci]

I feel that there is so much defensiveness about Burnham being called a Mary Sue because there are negative connotations about Mary Sue.

There's defensiveness about Michael being called a Mary Sue because in this context it's almost always a misogynistic attack, and because it's false.

I really don’t get how anyone can argue that Burnham isn’t flawed, when the entire series begins with a series of fuck-ups bad enough to start a war and get her sent to space-jail.

A fuck up that came about because Burnham did not want her captain fucking up.

So what? It's a fuck-up that stemmed from a very serious character flaw of Michael's, and it precludes her from being a Mary Sue by definition.

And how many time do you need to see the rest of the crew being behind her, and the brass coming around to her before you realize she is supposed to be universally liked?

Please do give more supporting detail, because I don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

If you are so confused with my posts,

Your sentence quoted above was so vague as to be completely meaningless. Give specific examples.

I’m not mad about it. I don’t care if every second word in your post is fuck. Just pointing out that attempts to project authority over me are lame.

Don't be silly. The word "fuck" conveys emphasis, not authority.

And I do watch Discovery, and comprehend what I’m watching more that you realize.

If your viewing comprehension is as good as your reading comprehension -- emphasis is not authority! -- then I seriously question that.

 

[Soong-type Android]

I don't understand why Discovery wasn't set way in the far future to begin with. It always looked awkward setting it in the mid 23rd century and seemed to just so it could attach itself to legacy characters to build itself up because it didn't seem confident enough in its own premise. It didn't add anything to the existing Star Trek mythos by inserting itself as TOS prequel and only improved once it jumped to the 32nd century.

I suppose the only mildly good thing that came from Discovery was Strange New Worlds, though there wasn't any reason for it to exist besides to milk the franchise.

 

[fireproof78]

though there wasn't any reason for it to exist besides to milk the franchise.

That's the only reason any of these shows exist.

 

[Soong-type Android]

true

 

[The Wormhole]

I don't understand why Discovery wasn't set way in the far future to begin with. It always looked awkward setting it in the mid 23rd century and seemed to just so it could attach itself to legacy characters to build itself up because it didn't seem confident enough in its own premise. It didn't add anything to the existing Star Trek mythos by inserting itself as TOS prequel and only improved once it jumped to the 32nd century.

I suppose the only mildly good thing that came from Discovery was Strange New Worlds, though there wasn't any reason for it to exist besides to milk the franchise.

Supposedly Bryan Fuller wanted to base the show around a throw-away line from TOS. But the the writers who took over after he left apparently didn't know this, so the show never did elaborate on that throw-away line, nor has it ever been revealed what that line was.

 

[Dukhat]

I don't understand why Discovery wasn't set way in the far future to begin with. It always looked awkward setting it in the mid 23rd century and seemed to just so it could attach itself to legacy characters to build itself up because it didn't seem confident enough in its own premise. It didn't add anything to the existing Star Trek mythos by inserting itself as TOS prequel and only improved once it jumped to the 32nd century.

Fuller's original idea was to have an anthology show where each season would take place in a different time period, presumably based on the previous Trek series (ENT, TOS, TOS movie era, TNG era, and a future time past all that.) Also, as @The Wormhole mentioned, the TOS part was supposed to have something to do with a throw-away line, possibly the Battle of Axanar. But none of that came to pass.

 

[DigificWriter]

Fuller's original idea was to have an anthology show where each season would take place in a different time period

Almost everybody who says this acts like it was even remotely close to happening, which it wasn't, because it's not what CBS/Paramount wanted in a Star Trek series.

 

[Unimatrix Q]

Supposedly Bryan Fuller wanted to base the show around a throw-away line from TOS. But the the writers who took over after he left apparently didn't know this, so the show never did elaborate on that throw-away line, nor has it ever been revealed what that line was.

Thought that it may have been about something in "Errand of Mercy" in combination with the mentioning of a Klingon - Federation war in "Heart of Glory".

 

[Dukhat]

Almost everybody who says this acts like it was even remotely close to happening, which it wasn't, because it's not what CBS/Paramount wanted in a Star Trek series.

Where did I say that it was remotely close to happening? It doesn’t change the fact that it was his original idea.

 

[eschaton]

The fundamental issue with Discovery is that it started pretty bereft of ideas. Fuller had ideas, but they were likely unworkable on a TV budget, and once he was gone CBS just wanted Discovery as a general vehicle to drive subscriptions and revive the franchise. Indeed, if it were anything other than Trek it would have been written off as a loss once he was fired. But failure wasn't an option, so they kept tinkering with it repeatedly til all rough edges were sanded off.

I'll freely admit that all past Trek series were just constructed for ratings as well. But I think the retooling on the fly seems less jarring on episodic shows for some reason.

 

[Lord Garth]

They name-drop Donatu V in "The Vulcan Hello". There was a battle there that was referred to in "The Trouble With Tribbles". If that's what Bryan Fuller wanted to follow-up on, that was really reaching on his part.

I know of no battle at the binary stars that was ever referred to in TOS. And DSC never covers Axanar. Maybe that battle would've shown up later on in the season, but then Aaron Harberts and Gretchen Berg dropped it.

Guessing in the dark.

 

[DigificWriter]

Based on the production timeline, 3/4 of Season 1's story was Bryan Fuller's brainchild, and the remaining 1/4 of the story was the brainchild of Kurtzman and the EPs that Fuller had hired, Berg and Harberts.

 

[Lord Garth]

I thought about Corvan II from "The Butcher's Knife", but the only other place Corvan II is ever referred to in other Star Trek is in "New Ground" (TNG). Corvan II | Memory Alpha | Fandom

I thought I had it.

 

[Tuskin38]

Based on the production timeline, 3/4 of Season 1's story was Bryan Fuller's brainchild, and the remaining 1/4 of the story was the brainchild of Kurtzman and the EPs that Fuller had hired, Berg and Harberts.

behind the scenes info would say otherwise.

 

[DigificWriter]

behind the scenes info would say otherwise.

I'm relying on behind-the-scenes production details and the timeline of events relative to Fuller being fired in making my statement about how much of DSC Season 1's story was dreamed up by Fuller, so if you have conflicting information, please share it.

 

[Turtletrekker]

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.

What I like to refer to as "BermaTrek".

 

[FederationHistorian]

There's defensiveness about Michael being called a Mary Sue because in this context it's almost always a misogynistic attack, and because it's false.

Yes. The guy that like Burnham, supports the middle crew which half are female, is in favour of a Seven and Raffi show, is openminded to a number of female led shows, is misogynistic.

So what? It's a fuck-up that stemmed from a very serious character flaw of Michael's, and it precludes her from being a Mary Sue by definition.

Maybe from the Starfleet point of view.

It would have been a moot issue on a Vulcan ship.

Don't be silly. The word "fuck" conveys emphasis, not authority.

Yes, as emphasis is strength. And authority is rooted in strength.

 

[DigificWriter]

Yes. The guy that like Burnham, supports the middle crew which half are female, is in favour of a Seven and Raffi show, is openminded to a number of female led shows, is misogynistic.

You cannot really be as obtuse as your posts make you seem, but just in case you are truly that obtuse, I'm going to spell it out for you: You're the one being misogynistic by referring to Burnham as a Mary Sue.

 

[Lord Garth]

Back to finding an incident referenced in TOS. I thought about the battle during "Into the Forest I Go". I tried to see if Pavho was ever referenced in TOS, and it wasn't. In fact, Pavho wasn't introduced into Star Trek until DSC itself. So that wasn't the event either. It's like searching for a Unicorn.

 

[Sci]

I'm pretty sure the throwaway line from TOS Fuller referred to were the lines establishing previous conflicts between the Federation and Klingons before "Errand of Mercy."