Poll Do You Believe STD Is Actually a Reboot [After Seeing It]?
- Thread starter Kane_Steel
- Start date
I never heard any talk about Berman and Braga wanting to replace TOS. I think when they settled on a concept they were thinking of it more as a prequel to the 24th century. Initially though I think they were thinking even more outside of the box than even Fuller. Weren't they talking about spending the entire first season on earth but the studio wouldn't let them, which does seem to be a common problem with Trek. Great idea's being shot down by upper management because they are afraid to take chances.
The other difference was the show had I think a 60 year gap instead of 10 year gap to TOS which I suspect they saw as something for more creative freedom. Combine that with the idea of thinking of it as more of a spin-off from "First Contact" and to deal with early exploration. Discovery seems to be trying to win over people with a Battlestar Galatica aproach to TNG, Sometimes it feels like more edgy version of a Berman era show where Enterprise wanted to also be a more edgy version of TNG only with exploration instead of war as it's main theme. At least until the final two seasons. Only difference is Discovery looks like it will be much better than "Enterprise" in terms of writing and stories but that 10 year gap is a really hard sell for me, anyways to get over in terms of seeing it as part of the same universe. I think it would have been better if they could have bumped it back another 10 years or so which I think must be around the time of the USS Kelvin and it would be easier to believe. I could in my head see the federation going through some kind of cultural change in 30 years were things look different in the way things today look different from the 70's or 80's. With a 10 year gap though it means excepting the idea that 2017 looks really different from 2007 and I don't see it though might not be a fair comparsion since it feels like our society has been stuck in amber since 9/11.
Jason
And I've never heard the producers of Discovery wanting to replace TOS, but you're making that suggestion. Back in the day, I recall there were plenty of fans making the same suggestion that you did.
I'm not certain if that's rumor or fact, but I do recall hearing that as well.
I don't agree with your assessment. Yes, Discovery is trying to be more edgy. It is trying to be more 2017. Is it trying to replace TOS with TNG? I don't know but I don't think so. This does not, to me, feel particularly like Berman Trek. It feels like something new. Is that good or bad? It's been mixed results so far. The first episode was really not good and the second was pretty okay. At least in my opinion. I don't think, after two hours, I'm ready to make any kind of sweeping judgment call on Discovery. Of course, your mileage may vary.
I think there's a difference between folks who are simply trying to entertain and self-proclaimed "superfans" who tell us everything is going to line up. The latter will be held to a higher standard.
Enterprise was 100 years before TOS, and a hundred years after First Contact. And yes, they wanted most of the first season to take place on Earth while the NX-01 was being built. They talk about it on the Blu-Rays.
Broken Bow is often considered to be one of the best trek pilot episodes. If I were to compare it to the half pilot I've seen of Discovery, I think I'd have to give the props to Broken Bow. It's a thrilling, well done episode. The only aspect that I don't particularly care for is the somewhat forced conflict between the main characters. To me, whenever they write Trek stories where the mains are b****hing at each other, it almost always feels contrived, and makes the characters look immature, incompetent, "angsty," and incredibly unsympathetic. People simply don't act that way, especially in a professional or military environment. They did that a lot on Enterprise, and I feel the same way about the conflict in the minuscule amount of Discovery I've seen.
My favorite pilot is WNMHGB. The acting, pacing, atmosphere, etc is superb compared to subsequent Trek pilots. I feel like the craft of storytelling through TV and Movies is becoming less sophisticated, less nuanced, and less polished (and more oversaturated)with each passing year. When it comes to these forms of art, I feel like we're on the fast track to Idiocracy.
Broken Bow is often considered to be one of the best trek pilot episodes. If I were to compare it to the half pilot I've seen of Discovery, I think I'd have to give the props to Broken Bow. It's a thrilling, well done episode. The only aspect that I don't particularly care for is the somewhat forced conflict between the main characters. To me, whenever they write Trek stories where the mains are b****hing at each other, it almost always feels contrived, and makes the characters look immature, incompetent, "angsty," and incredibly unsympathetic. People simply don't act that way, especially in a professional or military environment. They did that a lot on Enterprise, and I feel the same way about the conflict in the minuscule amount of Discovery I've seen.
My favorite pilot is WNMHGB. The acting, pacing, atmosphere, etc is superb compared to subsequent Trek pilots. I feel like the craft of storytelling through TV and Movies is becoming less sophisticated, less nuanced, and less polished (and more oversaturated)with each passing year. When it comes to these forms of art, I feel like we're on the fast track to Idiocracy.
Yes It is just a theory about how they want "Discovery" to replace "TOS" but it kind of makes sense that they in the long run would want to replace all of the old Trek's and make them feel obsolete so the fans will see what I guess you could call a reboot of canon and go on and basically create a new shared universe that old trek,especially the Berman shows use to have. I think CBS has it's eyes towards to the future beyond just this one show.
Me I actually liked both episodes. I think Burnham is good and eased my concern about how I wasn't sure if she could carry a show because I never thought all that much of her "Walking Dead" character. She wasn't bad but she did blend into the background to much and didn't feel like one of the more important characters. I liked the action and space battle and the special effects and Burnham and her captain were great together and Saru I think is on the way of being one of Trek's great characters and can even be the, comment of humanity, character that has been around since Spock,
For me the Berman stuff I saw came I think from how much of the story was built around bridge talk and they were on the bridge a great deal of time and I wasn't expecting that. PLus some of the tech talk felt familiar but at least they changed lots of the terminology. The show also lacked humor and banter and when they did it it felt kind of safe which felt very Berman era to me. Even the fights were much tamer than I was expecting. I could see this show being run on regular CBS and not being changed at all and I thought it was going to even be more bolder than it was. The only moment of violence that really hit hard was the guy being sucked out in space who was talking to Burnham while she was locked up. I jolted when that happened because I didn't see that happening.
My problem isn't really even with the show as it is. It's like someone else said here and I don't see this show feeding into the previous shows, I don't see myself watching "TOS" and thinking about how that Spock has a sister and wonder if what he is doing during that scene might be impacted by having a sister. I think this show is going to feel like "The Kelvin Universe" and that it's own brand. Maybe someday people will be talking about the Discoveryverse when we start seeing future spin-offs or it will be like comic books were the concept of canon is no longer a thing and each show will having nothing to do with any of the other shows other than having "Star trek" and a few references in it.
Jason
Can you give any of these examples of them being careful? Other then a couple props and sound effects, what sort of lead ins do you see being set up?
Or was it those pigheaded, chauvinistic Tellarites??
It’s never all going to line up. Those super fans are living in a dream world if they truly think it will happen.
I’ve said it before. I’ll say it again. This is a franchise that has been around for 51 years. There are now thirteen movies, seven series, twenty nine seasons of live action, two seasons of animated, coming to a total of 740 episodes at the end of the current season. That it holds together as amazingly as it is is a testament to the longevity of the franchise and the care that those who have worked on it over the years have brought to it. Mistakes will occur from time to time and that’s okay.
It would be easy to chuck it all out the window. But if we are to believe what the Discovery producers say, they have stuck with what has come before story-wise. Of course, the proof will be in pudding. And we’ve only gotten a taste so far.
Visually only. It's clearly set in the prime timeline.
Changes in canon are so silly to be upset by: Trek shows have always played with continuity, whether intentionally or not. Sometimes things would change episode to episode when someone wasn't paying attention (Kirk's middle name), or when a writer simply wanted to make a creative choice (killing Kirk despite Scotty's dialog in "The Relic).
Changes in canon are so silly to be upset by: Trek shows have always played with continuity, whether intentionally or not. Sometimes things would change episode to episode when someone wasn't paying attention (Kirk's middle name), or when a writer simply wanted to make a creative choice (killing Kirk despite Scotty's dialog in "The Relic).
A war in the 90s would also prevent a lot of the "modern" tech from our times, that is absent in the 23rd century, from being developed initially and as incorporated into our society as it is. Star Trek is the future of a world that never had the cell/smart phone revolution, nor the societal changes that came with social media.
Trek being in OUR real world future has always been what sets it apart from the likes of Star Wars. It was intended as a realistic extrapolation of where we are going, historically, and as a people.
Sure, certain events like the Eugenics Wars and WWIII make it difficult to jibe with the real world now, but that's largely because the writers in 1966 never expected the show to be scrutinized 30 years later.
For the most part I overlook the Eugenics stuff, and compartmentalize it, as it were. It's a small part of the universe and history of this franchise, frankly; but to totally erase Trek's connection to the real world is to erase a large part of its appeal, at least for me.
Sure, certain events like the Eugenics Wars and WWIII make it difficult to jibe with the real world now, but that's largely because the writers in 1966 never expected the show to be scrutinized 30 years later.
For the most part I overlook the Eugenics stuff, and compartmentalize it, as it were. It's a small part of the universe and history of this franchise, frankly; but to totally erase Trek's connection to the real world is to erase a large part of its appeal, at least for me.
For me, it would be Kirk and Spock 4.0. I've totally bought the Mignogna - Haberkorn duo as 3.0.
4 years (and dozens of viewings) later they feel more natural to me then the reboot 2.0 cast.
^^^
Why do you keep bring up the mess that was ten pre-production of TNG in 1987?...oh, wait...
I didn't realize that they want Discovery to replace TOS as the defining show of that era of Trek. But it really wouldn't surprise me, if that is indeed true.
I have gotten the impression that there are Trek fans who are so bothered by the aesthetic of TOS that they wish that TOS could be swept away (like that crazy uncle in the attic) and/or be replaced, or "fixed".
For some, TOS is the odd ball, the odd man out in terms of aesthetic (which also can affect the canon like with the Klingons). Sure, the visuals and special effects of TOS are indeed primitive and somewhat cheesy compared to the other Trek series.
Also, I guess some fans find the canon that was effectively established by TOS, so many years ago, to be disagreeable or problematic for whatever reason. They think they can do better.
It will be interesting to see if Discovery turns out to be a reboot or not. In any case, whether it will be entertaining, or not, may be a different matter.
I never thought of TOS as the odd man out. Thing is, each Trek series is very much a product of their time.
TOS is very much a 60s show, both visually and narratively. TNG screams "80s" and DS9 and VOY reflect the 90s era storytelling and visuals as well.
Enterprise is very much a product of the early 00s, also, with a bit more "grit" and humanism, and like other shows from that era, influenced by the changing geo politics.
Likewise, Discovery is a product of the late 2010s. Visually, and narratively. Trek has always evolved with the times, and this is no different.
TOS is very much a 60s show, both visually and narratively. TNG screams "80s" and DS9 and VOY reflect the 90s era storytelling and visuals as well.
Enterprise is very much a product of the early 00s, also, with a bit more "grit" and humanism, and like other shows from that era, influenced by the changing geo politics.
Likewise, Discovery is a product of the late 2010s. Visually, and narratively. Trek has always evolved with the times, and this is no different.
I believe its the final nail in the Trek's coffin.
That's what they said about ENT. Even if this show is a horrible bomb, Star Trek will make a return to TV again. Maybe years, but it'll return. That's just what Hollywood does.
NuTrek and STD are obviously zombies that have risen from that coffin, shambling shadows of their former self that no one has managed to score a head shot on.
Hopefully with the full rights that allows the makers of the new show to actually make a Star Trek show and not another diluted down piece of drivel.
What SPCTRE Freeman said.