Poll Do You Believe STD Is Actually a Reboot [After Seeing It]?

[BillJ]

How would you have solved this, while intending to make a series in this timeline? Clearly the world has changed since the 60s, and any series will be influenced by the time it is made.

That's why you make it a reboot (or an alternate timeline), there's no way you can mesh two things made fifty years apart into a consistent whole. I treat Discovery as a distinct thing. What a tribble is doesn't lose its meaning just because the show is its own thing.

Some people are attached to the Prime timeline, which is fine. But, whether or not Discovery is a reboot doesn't affect my enjoyment of the older material, I watched "Descent" last night, nor Discovery.

 

[KennyB]

Just no. Why not quit trying to tell other people how they feel or why they feel the way they do. Concentrate on why you believe this fits in with the "Prime" timeline. Beyond "because CBS says so!!!"



No, fans determine how they interpret the material they are given. Even if I loved Discovery, it still doesn't mesh with TOS. Unless you want to tell me why, eight years later, women go on about being frightened and standing behind the men who are their protectors. Or how we now have officers who have climbed the ranks of Starfleet referring to others as "animals" and "garbage".

There's more to whether or not something fits beyond names and dates on a calendar.

And this is why it is pointless.........some people can look and see that technology, gender and race relations have changed in 51 years, not to even mention fashion. Some however are locked into EVERYTHING from TOS must be exactly the same. Sets, costumes, technology.......EVERYTHING or I will not accept it. You also have people in the midrange of course. While I can sympathize with the "purists" I know that THAT take would not be successful in attracting a new generation of fans, which they need if Trek is going to survive. I fan films for revisiting the ship of the 1960s but I am enjoying Discovery to see the vision updated for 2017.

 

[BillJ]

And this is why it is pointless.........some people can look and see that technology, gender and race relations have changed in 51 years, not to even mention fashion. Some however are locked into EVERYTHING from TOS must be exactly the same. Sets, costumes, technology.......EVERYTHING or I will not accept it.

It isn't about accepting Discovery as "Star Trek", it is about it fitting in with what came before. Once you whittle away the look, the social views, the technology of TOS... what is left for Discovery to actually fit in with?

I can watch the 1960's Batman, the 1989 film, the Dark Knight trilogy and enjoy them all as takes on the Batman mythos. But there's no way, even if Warner Bros. and DC swore up and down they all take place in the same timeline that I could accept it as such.

 

[KennyB]

I think Batman is clearly a reboot. 60's, 80s-90s, the Nolan trilogy, and now the DCU take......all reboots. I can reconcile and enjoy Trek without a reboot. The ONLY reboot to me was the ST09 Kelvin timeline......and I wake up happy.

 

[BillJ]

I think Batman is clearly a reboot. 60's, 80s-90s, the Nolan trilogy, and now the DCU take......all reboots. I can reconcile and enjoy Trek without a reboot. The ONLY reboot to me was the ST09 Kelvin timeline......and I wake up happy.

Which is fine. But you didn't actually answer the question I asked.

Once you whittle away the look, the social views, the technology of TOS... what is left for Discovery to actually fit in with?

Some people can squint their eyes and be cool with it all being the same universe. Which is cool. I can't and I've actually explained why. Yet no one has actually explained how they feel this fits in with TOS. They just go with the two gold standards of "you're just a nerd living in Mom's basement that wants everything to look like it was made with cardboard!" and "CBS says so!".

I'm actually interested in why people feel this fits in. What are they seeing that I'm not?

 

[Anders]

That's why you make it a reboot (or an alternate timeline), there's no way you can mesh two things made fifty years apart into a consistent whole. I treat Discovery as a distinct thing. What a tribble is doesn't lose its meaning just because the show is its own thing.

Some people are attached to the Prime timeline, which is fine. But, whether or not Discovery is a reboot doesn't affect my enjoyment of the older material, I watched "Descent" last night, nor Discovery.

I think constantly rebooting Trek devalues it. This is one small part of why the Kelvin timeline can't live up to the Prime timeline shows. Rather, when keeping the Prime timeline, you have a greater total story, that you can work on and evolve,and it all fits together. In all that, you have to take one small thing into consideration, and that is that TOS was made in the 60s, and the world and technology has changed since then. They had incredible people involved in writing the stories and making the show, but they couldn't quite escape the 60s when they made it.

 

[BillJ]

I think constantly rebooting Trek devalues it.

I tend to disagree. It didn't hurt comic books for fifty-plus years and nor comic book movies. If they were done well, people would show up, regardless of whether or not they were the same universe. Heck, DC has three different TV/movie universes going right now on FOX, the CW and the big screen.

Discovery is a square peg trying to be rammed into the round hole that is TOS.

In all that, you have to take one small thing into consideration, and that is that TOS was made in the 60s...

That's not a small thing though. The DNA of the original Star Trek is the 1960's, that world, that society, the experiences of those writers informed every decision they made (for good and ill).

 

[Prax]

Show me one thing in TMP that resembled the old television series, aside from the classic shuttlecraft added in the 2001 edition.
Not one computer display, uniform, prop, ship or anything remained unchanged.

If TMP is a reboot, then so is First Contact, but I'll give you one thing. The Klingon ships; which appear in TOS, TAS, TMP, TUC, TNG, and Voyager, and possibly DS9.

 

[eschaton]

I don't care much about this reboot discussion. IMHO Star Trek is best understood as a mythos, and like any mythology, it has never been 100% internally consistent.

That said, IMHO It's damn stupid to use a prequel setting if you're not going to do much of anything with it. So far, it almost seems like the people who decided it was going to be a prequel were different from the people who fleshed out the series - and the latter resented the shackles that the prequel status put on them (I have read interviews with people involved with the series who are really resentful about the ways Enterprise restricted their creative freedom, for example).

 

[Prax]

We're 20% through just the first season. We don't know what's coming, or what they're going to do with it.

 

[eschaton]

We're 20% through just the first season. We don't know what's coming, or what they're going to do with it.

Hence why I said "so far."

Everyone watches the show for different reasons. Me, I'm watching it primarily because I'm interested in the mystery of how they'll work this back into the Prime Timeline canon. I couldn't care less about the characters so far.

 

[fireproof78]

We're 20% through just the first season. We don't know what's coming, or what they're going to do with it.

And yet, DSC will be condemned for that 20%.

 

[Mad Jack Wolfe]

And yet, DSC will be condemned for that 20%.

Welcome to the Internet, where anyone and anything is guilty until proven guiltier.

 

[urbandefault]

Aside from the crew of the Intrepid and perhaps other ships?


There's only the most superficial resemblance: he's bald.

The shape of the head, the nose makeup, the ears, and the skin tone are different than the DSC Klingons, as I described in further detail earlier in the thread.

Kor

I've seen a bunch of people at work today with different head shapes, different noses, different skin tones, etc. I wonder what kind of aliens they were?

 

[Prax]

Hence why I said "so far."

Everyone watches the show for different reasons. Me, I'm watching it primarily because I'm interested in the mystery of how they'll work this back into the Prime Timeline canon. I couldn't care less about the characters so far.

What about the spores? Do you you care about the spores?!

I care about the spores.

 

[Albinator]

I find Burnham to be the most fascinating main cast member in Trek history. Only DS9's Odo and Kira had such complex and fascinating characters.

Within 3 episodes she is as deep and interesting as anyone was after 7 seasons.

She's complex, she's layered, and her relationships are diverse and I feel like there is so much to explore. Lorca is also an emerging favorite. It's no coincidence that both of my favorite characters are the once with complexity and secrets. I want to know more.

As much as I love TNG (always will)-- characters like Picard, Riker, Geordi, Troi-- they had some interesting stories throughout their run, but they were so bland as characters. Worf was probably the most complex, and even he was the cardboard cutout of sorts. While Burnham is also a "character torn between two worlds" it's her actions that make her interesting and inform her character, more than a simple logline in her bio.

 

[eschaton]

While Burnham is also a "character torn between two worlds" it's her actions that make her interesting and inform her character, more than a simple logline in her bio.

Tastes vary, and I'm not going to slag on you for liking Burnham. That said, I don't see how you can say her actions are what makes her interesting, when the first two episodes spent much more time telling us how special she was (flashbacks, communication with Sarek via subspace and then Katra vision, etc) than actually showing us her actions.

 

[Tuskin38]

aside from the classic shuttlecraft added in the 2001 edition.

Really?

 

[F. King Daniel]

Really?

Yep, taking off from Starfleet HQ at the start.

 

[Albinator]

Tastes vary, and I'm not going to slag on you for liking Burnham. That said, I don't see how you can say her actions are what makes her interesting, when the first two episodes spent much more time telling us how special she was (flashbacks, communication with Sarek via subspace and then Katra vision, etc) than actually showing us her actions.

Because we saw her make choices. She chose to defy order, mutiny, and accept punishment. We saw her eager to go back to prison. We saw her see through Lorca. We saw her take the initiative on the away mission to the Glenn, and risk her own life to save the others.

We saw her stand up to Lorca and stand by her ideals.

But keep cherry picking.