Discovery Renewed for Season 5

[Harpsichord]

I can't entirely fault people for primarily engaging visually with a visual medium. It's just what it is.

I've met a fair number of Star Trek fans casually over the years (work retail with Star Trek pins on) and most of the cannon warriors know less about Star Trek than an average poster here has forgotten. Someone told me once that they didn't like Discovery because it violated can-non* two sentences after they said they liked the Intrepid class Enterprise-E. For whatever reason some people can't simply not like something, they have to search for some deeper reason why they didn't like it. So they go onto YT and hear all these smart-boy reasons it didn't click with them and even if they knew none of it while they watched the show they will confidently state that those canon violations were the actual problem.

*I bet if I watched enough drek on YT I could pinpoint exactly which youtuber someone watched by the specific way they mispronounce canon (it's like the camera!)

 

[Tuskin38]

I remember some people calling 'woke' over Gina Carano and her character, but the moment she showed her true colours, they praising her. There were people upset with Mando over Cobb Vanth's backstory in Season 2, but they were even less of a vocal minority than the usual complainers. You're right in saying it's had less of a wave in that side of the fandom.

But this isn't the mando thread so I'll stop there.

 

[fireproof78]

I can't entirely fault people for primarily engaging visually with a visual medium. It's just what it is.

Of course not. But at least be honest about it rather than couching it not liking the writing, or characters. Not saying these things are mutually exclusive but the surface level visual connection shouldn't be ignored.

Someone told me once that they didn't like Discovery because it violated can-non* two sentences after they said they liked the Intrepid class Enterprise-E. For whatever reason some people can't simply not like something, they have to search for some deeper reason why they didn't like it.

This is more what I think is the case. To them, not liking Star Trek is a whole new experience that requires deep and profound justification. Maybe I'm just old or cynical or something but I had the first Star Trek I didn't like fairly early in to my Trek fan experience-I didn't like TMP. It visually stands apart from TOS in a way that makes it incompatible with TOS.

The larger difference for me is that I don't think the visual changes show a disrespect towards past Treks, I don't think it shows an antipathy on the part of the designers towards past Treks, I don't think it is an alternate reality, and I think it works together if a person is willing to work with it rather than believe that the visuals are too different and therefore it is wrong.

I was thinking about this a bit and I realized a potential analogy that might work-if the Brady Bunch had a completely remodeled kitchen, to the point that it was much larger than before, I would not assume that the Bradys were suddenly an alternate reality Brady family. I would assume that something had changed between the last time I saw them and the next time.

Now, this is clearly a mileage will vary thing, because several have noted this is a visual medium and that visuals carry weight. Not saying that they don't, but the extremes that are gone to in justifying antipathy and pigeonholing Discovery so it doesn't touch other Trek is amazingly acrobatic in the mental gymnastics.

 

[jackoverfull]

I have long suspected that if Discovery had done a bridge set like the SNW one, and ships that looked like TOS, and uniforms similar to Pike's from the get go the pushback would not have been as extreme

oh, this is certainly a face of it, but certainly not the only face.

But yes, it’s hard to market a show as “ten years before Kirk and Spock” and not expected eyebrows raised when it doesn’t look at all as that era looked before.

but it proves the point that people actually don't give as much of a hoot about "good writing" when all it takes is a small tweak to the visuals and it's accepted.

nope, it doesn’t “prove” anything at all. There is no such thing as “people”: there are different individuals who may or may not care about specific issues in different ways.

It's vapid and shallow and annoying.

Nice to see “proof” of non judgemental reasoning.

 

[fireproof78]

oh, this is certainly a face of it, but certainly not the only face.

But yes, it’s hard to market a show as “ten years before Kirk and Spock” and not expected eyebrows raised when it doesn’t look at all as that era looked before.

Eyebrows raised =/= "not canon/alternate timeline/."

nope, it doesn’t “prove” anything at all. There is no such thing as “people”: there are different individuals who may or may not care about specific issues in different ways.

Generally speaking was my point.

Nice to see “proof” of non judgemental reasoning.

I never claimed I wasn't judgmental. I'm highly judgmental, and irritable and emotional.

 

[SJGardner]

I can't entirely fault people for primarily engaging visually with a visual medium. It's just what it is.

I've met a fair number of Star Trek fans casually over the years (work retail with Star Trek pins on) and most of the cannon warriors know less about Star Trek than an average poster here has forgotten. Someone told me once that they didn't like Discovery because it violated can-non* two sentences after they said they liked the Intrepid class Enterprise-E. For whatever reason some people can't simply not like something, they have to search for some deeper reason why they didn't like it. So they go onto YT and hear all these smart-boy reasons it didn't click with them and even if they knew none of it while they watched the show they will confidently state that those canon violations were the actual problem.

*I bet if I watched enough drek on YT I could pinpoint exactly which youtuber someone watched by the specific way they mispronounce canon (it's like the camera!)

I've had an intense argument with a colleague of mine after Discovery's third season opener, where they've kept complaining about how stupid Burnham's spacesuit landing was because basic logic says she should've burned up in the atmosphere as no shield generator could be small enough for a person to carry, and this is all just yet more evidence of her being a giant insufferable Mary Sue. This colleague hasn't watched the show since early first season because they somehow concluded Tilly was spying on Burnham for Lorca and were enraged by having Burnham try to befriend her "like a spineless doormat or a blind idiot" instead of confronting her about her "blatantly telegraphed treachery," so I naturally couldn't understand how they were suddenly so interested in whining about Season 3. Turns out they've just happened upon the Critical Drinker's "review" of it and all their arguments about Mary-Sue Burnham were literally sourced from the video without any critical thought or, naturally, ever having watched any episode beyond Episode 5, Season 1. Point is, this colleague of mine is a huge Voyager fan and prides themselves on knowing everything about it, yet somehow has managed to forget that orbital skydiving is a thing that exists in the Star Trek universe as shown on Voyager.

 

[jackoverfull]

Eyebrows raised =/= "not canon/alternate timeline/."

Which only a fraction of the fanbase still insists discovery is in notwithstanding the evidence.

back in the beginning, though, wondering is discovery was set in the Kelvin timeline was pretty understandable, what with all the features carried over from the movies, such as bridge windows, similar effects, huge ships and so on. Nowadays you can see people wondering if prodigy is set in the Kelvinverse based on much fewer similarities.

I never claimed I wasn't judgmental. I'm highly judgmental, and irritable and emotional

still good talking with you, though.

I've had an intense argument with a colleague of mine after Discovery's third season opener, where they've kept complaining about how stupid Burnham's spacesuit landing was because basic logic says she should've burned up in the atmosphere as no shield generator could be small enough for a person to carry,

indeed this grievance sounds quite baseless, as we have zero knowledge of 23th century space suit’s abilities and besides surviving an orbital entry isn’t by far the most unbelievable thing about the angel suit.

That said, the sequence was a bit too cartoonish for my tastes, but it’s only a minor issue in what I otherwise consider one of the best episodes in the series. And not a writing issue here, of course, just an fx/choreography one.

 

[SJGardner]

Eyebrows raised =/= "not canon/alternate timeline/."

I'd imagine a huge part of the audience would find the exact opposite much weirder... seeing a 23rd century show showing strict adherence to visual continuity with an almost 60-year-old series, a 2020s audience could very well be dumbstruck at how something that looks this low-budget or at the very least this dated is supposed to depict our future. The common canon purist argument that "Star Trek is alternate history" wouldn't be enough to suspend their disbelief.

And when people come with "but Star Wars", I think they might not consider that even though it wasn't quite the money-consuming production powerhouse at the beginning as it's today, it still couldn't be compared to a late-60s television budget. And the design style of the original trilogy is, more or less, "World War 2 in space with a dusty-rusty junkyard aesthetics, lots of texture and machine-y parts on everything", which is not as easy to date to the late 70s as the TOS production assets and visual cues could be readily identified as being from the sixties.

 

[fireproof78]

Which only a fraction of the fanbase still insists discovery is in notwithstanding the evidence.

back in the beginning, though, wondering is discovery was set in the Kelvin timeline was pretty understandable, what with all the features carried over from the movies, such as bridge windows, similar effects, huge ships and so on. Nowadays you can see people wondering if prodigy is set in the Kelvinverse based on much fewer similarities.

Which is fair points but the overall idea that Discovery would not be questioned if the aesthetics was 60s inspired is more my point.

still good talking with you, though.

I may be a grumpy jerk but I at least try to be honest about it.

I'd imagine a huge part of the audience would find the exact opposite much weirder... seeing a 23rd century show showing strict adherence to visual continuity with an almost 60-year-old series, a 2020s audience could very well be dumbstruck at how something that looks this low-budget or at the very least this dated is supposed to depict our future. The common canon purist argument that "Star Trek is alternate history" wouldn't be enough to suspend their disbelief.

And when people come with "but Star Wars", I think they might not consider that even though it wasn't quite the money-consuming production powerhouse at the beginning as it's today, it still couldn't be compared to a late-60s television budget. And the design style of the original trilogy is, more or less, "World War 2 in space with a dusty-rusty junkyard aesthetics, lots of texture and machine-y parts on everything", which is not as easy to date to the late 70s as the TOS production assets and visual cues could be readily identified as being from the sixties.

Well, it's largely a difference in approach. Star Trek, as imagined, is not an alternate history. It is firmly rooted in our humanity's history, from the 60s all the way to now. Star Wars is fantasy. It's trappings largely didn't change until Lucas did the prequels which showed a much more refined, almost Victorian era style, to the galaxy. But, overall, it doesn't change but the set dressing is fantasy style and is utilized as shorthand to say "This is Star Wars." Star Trek was never designed to be like that.

 

[Lord Garth]

It really depends on where someone is coming from and how they approach it.

"My problem with Discovery is the pacing, it doesn't spread out its focus enough, and they could've done X instead of Y." --> Okay, I'm listening. I might not agree with you but I'm listening.

"I hate Discovery because it doesn't feel like Star Trek!" --> You lost me.

"Discovery is pushing out all the straight white men!" --> You lost me.

"Discovery doesn't follow Gene's Vision!" --> I've studied Gene's Vision for 30 years. I know what his "vision" was, what it became, when it happened, why, and I've read books about it, interviews with him, and listened to a recording of him lecturing at a University. I've looked at TOS, TMP, and the first two seasons of TNG very carefully during my time as a Trekkie. I'm also familiar with his other works besides Star Trek. I'd love to compare notes with you. But, if you're not as well-versed on the subject as I am then... You lost me.

 

[jackoverfull]

I'd imagine a huge part of the audience would find the exact opposite much weirder... seeing a 23rd century show showing strict adherence to visual continuity with an almost 60-year-old series, a 2020s audience could very well be dumbstruck at how something that looks this low-budget or at the very least this dated is supposed to depict our future.

it would. And for good reason. But see what happened with the enterprise in discovery and also with lower decks: you have similar visual cues to the old series while also looking different and “modern” and most people are praising those shows. Sure, there will be a few talibans that wanted the bridge to look exactly like the 60s or completely different, but most were are happy with the looks. The key is balance.

 

[SJGardner]

it would. And for good reason. But see what happened with the enterprise in discovery and also with lower decks: you have similar visual cues to the old series while also looking different and “modern” and most people are praising those shows. Sure, there will be a few talibans that wanted the bridge to look exactly like the 60s or completely different, but most were are happy with the looks. The key is balance.

I think even that balance is subjective and varies from person to person. It can have a lot of factors coming into play; some fans would favor updates featuring visual cues that evoke past designs more directly, while some others would feel that as long as the "Star Trek-y" vibes are there, it doesn't have to be a close match, and they would accept it as the way this production does the 23rd century; and if they wanted to reconcile things, they could still argue that we've been mainly seeing things that weren't directly featured in TOS before. Even that doesn't necessarily mean they like everything about the new designs, it's just that they won't dislike something for merely "looking out of place in the era."

It might be just me, but I find it easier to accept these deviations from visual consistency because ultimately it's a television production, and I still get the same vibes from it. Those vibes are a great part of that nuance, as I have encountered some purists here who immediately went "oh, if you have no problem with them changing how it looks then why not make Vulcans furry with six arms and purple skin?"

 

[jackoverfull]

, as I have encountered some purists here who immediately went "oh, if you have no problem with them changing how it looks then why not make Vulcans furry with six arms and purple skin

or Klingons with 4 nostrils and reptilian-looking?

 

[SJGardner]

or Klingons with 4 nostrils and reptilian-looking?

I still found it recognizable as a Klingon make-up. A bad and overdesigned Klingon make-up that made it very hard to understand what the actors were saying, but a Klingon make-up nonetheless.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

I'm mostly fine with them updating spaceships, sets and makeup to take advantage of modern technology and higher budgets (especially if I don't even notice until someone points it out). What I'm personally not keen on is when they take what the original designers did and then make different artistic choices. Money and technolgy had nothing to do with them shortening the neck of the Enterprise for instance. The Star Trek universe has different styles baked into its eras because of the times they were made, and if they're going to return to those eras they should take advantage of that instead of making everything in every time period look like it was designed in the 2020s.

I do like what they're doing with Strange New Worlds though, even if the sets look more 70s than 60s to me. I like Pike's shiny bridge.

 

[fireproof78]

I still found it recognizable as a Klingon make-up. A bad and overdesigned Klingon make-up that made it very hard to understand what the actors were saying, but a Klingon make-up nonetheless.

Exactly. If I can recognize it as what it is supposed to be then the new design is fine. I can tell Klingons are Klingons. the Enterprise is the Enterprise. Artistic choice are still valid.

 

[seigezunt]

I was more bothered by the weird center-justified and capitalized serif font used in the subtitles for the Klingons than anything at all about their design. I think many of the complaints about the number of subtitles would have vanished had they used a standard generic subtitle font

 

[Char Kais]

Not sure about this: they *do* tend to praise LDS and their Star Wars equivalent seem to like mandalorian.

Who are "they"? Who are the people specifically who dislike DIS and PIC but like Lower Decks?

All the people I know who dislike live-action NuTrek also dislike the animated NuTrek.
Some dislike LD less than DIS and PIC, but still dislike it.

Actually, this image has become emblematic for people who dislike NuTrek for what Lower Decks stands for:

https://boundingintocomics.com/2021...itself-with-star-trek-lower-decks-orgy-scene/

 

[jackoverfull]

Who are "they"? Who are the people specifically who dislike DIS and PIC but like Lower Decks?

take a look at the comment section of any new Trek clip on YouTube today and you’ll quickly find many of these “they”.

 

[Quinton]

All the people I know who dislike live-action NuTrek also dislike the animated NuTrek.
Some dislike LD less than DIS and PIC, but still dislike it.

I mean, personally, I don't actually care for LD very much.

But I have a difficult time imagining you "knowing" people who don't have the same universal dislike for Phase 3 as you do.