Poll Do you consider Discovery to truly be in the Prime Timeline at this point?

[Gonzo]

Could you be any more wrong? Like wow

I know what you mean, the levels of self righteousness by a few in this thread are just off the charts.

Lashing out at other aspects that have nothing to do with the thread is pretty standard defensive behaviour.

Essentially if you don't agree with everything they say you clearly aren't a real Star Trek fan.

They are too busy polishing their ToS halo to listen or consider anyone else's point of view and continue to blast the thread with the same tired old complaints.

You are better off just scrolling past their posts while they listen to themselves in their echo chamber, sooner or later they will stop, or just pretend to agree so they can give themselves a win.

Some just cant handle change and are literally incapable of letting it go.

 

[Gonzo]

Prior to the Capaldi era, Doctor Who was averaging about 7 or 8 million viewers, which is equivalent to the major soap operas - to coin a phrase, its kind of a big deal.

Must admit I haven't watched Doctor Who for a long time, there is just no threat in any of the villains any more, I cant take it seriously.

Of course that does make it better for kids, which is why its considered a safe show for family viewing.

 

[Delaware123]

The visuals, head ridges with hair, and retro-styling are continuity and canon. So no, Discovery obviously isn't canon. I don't even think it fits in the Kelvin universe, although that's closer. Discovery is in it's own pocket Star Trek universe... The Discoveryverse.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Speaking of censorship, you should familiarize yourself with this forum's Terms and Rules:

We reserve the rights to remove or modify any Content submitted for any reason without explanation. . . . We reserve the right to take action against any account with the Service at any time.​

Technically, that includes content that does not break any specific forum rules but triggers a fanatical mod or an admin who are in the wrong.

I don't know about all of you, but I like to think that I have a nose for duals on account of having spent so much time on the internets, and there are no red flags in this guy's very first post AT ALL. I predict a long and fruitful dialogue will come of this. Carry on.

 

[fireproof78]

I can't see them as the same species. They have four nostrils, for heaven's sake, and hairless egg-shaped heads.

I could see them as a different species within the same Empire, or as the result of deliberate morphological modification (perhaps attempting to reverse the effects of the Augment virus), both of which are speculative answers that fans around here have posted. Either one of those explanations would be perfectly plausible. All the show would have had to do is show some of the familiar sorts of Klingons, even in the background. As I've mentioned before, doing that would have actually reinforced the backstory about division among different factions in the Empire. Why it didn't do that, I can't imagine.

If there is a plausible explanation, then, to me, it is worth continuing to give the show an opportunity to explain it, rather than assuming the production team is a bunch of hacks who don't care.

No, I don't. I have repeatedly and explicitly qualified my opinions as being my own, and haven't attempted to bolster them by appealing to the authority of hypothetical mass audiences.

With respect, you have stated that viewers should expect more from a Star Trek production. The bar seems very high in terms of what makes a "Star Trek" production and how the production team should conduct themselves, including a frustration when expectations are not met, and an expectation that other audience members share that frustration.

Here's the thing-I want to know where my bar should be set so I can understand your point of view? As I have stated, I was highly disappointed by TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT. It took me years to warm up to some of them, and if I could discard most of them out of Trek canon, I would. I can't. That is not my job. I just don't watch them, for the most part, or, have tried to change my attitude towards them in terms of expectations.

So, respectfully, what is the standard? Also, since you have previously stated that the past 20 years have added nothing to Trek lore, why is Discovery such a bother?

 

[Mudd]

Speaking of censorship, you should familiarize yourself with this forum's Terms and Rules:

We reserve the rights to remove or modify any Content submitted for any reason without explanation. . . . We reserve the right to take action against any account with the Service at any time.​

Technically, that includes content that does not break any specific forum rules but triggers a fanatical mod or an admin who are in the wrong.

Outside of the specific environment of the legal profession, rules lawyering is the gateway to a life of angry frustration and resentment.

 

[lawman]

If there is a plausible explanation, then, to me, it is worth continuing to give the show an opportunity to explain it, rather than assuming the production team is a bunch of hacks who don't care.

I have no idea whether they care or not. But in terms of estimating their talent level, the back half of the season is making me lean depressingly toward "bunch of hacks." Like I've said, though, I'll stick around for S2 and try to be cautiously optimistic. I'm always down for a pleasant surprise!...

With respect, you have stated that viewers should expect more from a Star Trek production. The bar seems very high in terms of what makes a "Star Trek" production and how the production team should conduct themselves, including a frustration when expectations are not met, and an expectation that other audience members share that frustration.

Well, naturally I think other people should share my opinions... that's kind of the nature of having an opinion. ;-) OTOH, I don't go around asserting that other people necessarily do share those opinions.

Here's the thing-I want to know where my bar should be set so I can understand your point of view? As I have stated, I was highly disappointed by TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT. It took me years to warm up to some of them, and if I could discard most of them out of Trek canon, I would. I can't. That is not my job. I just don't watch them, for the most part, or, have tried to change my attitude towards them in terms of expectations.

So, respectfully, what is the standard? Also, since you have previously stated that the past 20 years have added nothing to Trek lore, why is Discovery such a bother?

Sounds like you've been setting your standards at a pretty reasonable level, then — past series have disappointed in various ways, and you judge them accordingly and don't re-watch. As a bare minimum, then, the desired standard of quality for DSC should be better than that. It would be nice to have a show that doesn't force you to lower your expectations, no?

To be more specific, I think it's reasonable to expect the show to deliver something like what it promised — that is, a level of storytelling comparable to other high-profile, high-budget, short-run, serialized programs on streaming services and cable networks. "Prestige TV." Something that can hold its own in terms of writing quality and acting quality and visual quality compared to Game of Thrones or The Expanse or Counterpart any of the other shows that have been mentioned here in the last few pages. Something that one could comfortably recommend to friends who aren't pre-sold Star Trek fans.

So far, it's not doing that.

In terms of continuity, I think again the reasonable standard is to expect the show to deliver something like what it promised — that is, a story recognizably set in the mid-23rd century of Star Trek, contemporary with "The Cage" (just a few years earlier) and TOS (just a few years later). That doesn't mean slavish imitation, but it does mean it would be nice to avoid jarring visual and narrative discontinuities in almost every episode... enough of those and you start to wonder whether the people making this show actually care about the original at all as anything more than a marketing gimmick.

And why is DSC such a bother in particular, above and beyond the disappointments of the last 20 years, aside from the fact that it's the current show and hence the one most worth talking about? In this context, I suppose it's because at this point, it's doing actual damage to that original setting — the one that you and I both consider Trek's gold standard — by asking us to swallow that it was substantively different from how we remember it.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

There is absolutely no way to validate a statement like that.

Run a poll.

 

[F. King Daniel]

So here's the reimagined D7 battlecruiser, as she appears in Star Trek: Discovery. SOURCE

Remember, it's the intent of the people who make Discovery that this is the same ship design as this:

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Still missing the point.

As I described, there will always be a few non-diegetic elements that we have to squint at and politely ignore. But deliberately multiplying the number of elements that the characters "don't notice" and the viewers are asked to pretend they don't is a whole other story. It's like using stuntpeople whose height, weight, and haircolor don't match the stars', or deliberately letting the boom mike drop into the frame...

Actually, I imagine it's a little like having two people having a perfectly normal discussion and then suddenly inexplicably breaking into a highly choreographed song and dance number.

Do the characters in musicals KNOW they're in a musical? Do they live in a strange alternate universe where random musical numbers just fucking happen and they just go along with it because that's the way the world works? Is it accepted that some conversations can only be accomplished through a spontaneous and impeccable coordinated flash mob?

Or is there an implicit understanding, even among the audience, the movie is not supposed to be taken strictly literally?

If DSC were a show that could stand on its own, things would be different. But it can't. It's Star Trek. You can't simultaneously say "judge the show strictly on its own merits, and don't compare it to any other production" and "accept the show as part of the same narrative setting you already know and love, not a reboot, not a remake." The two statements are not compatible. That's the conflict motivating this entire thread.

There's nothing incompatible about them. The fact that you DON'T WANT to do this is the conflict motivating most of your posts, but it's nothing much to do with the thread as a whole.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

So here's the reimagined D7 battlecruiser, as she appears in Star Trek: Discovery. SOURCE

Remember, it's the intent of the people who make Discovery that this is the same ship design as this:

Well, no, it's the same designation. Since we do not know, and have never known, what that designation actually means, it's hard to say how accurate it is.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Well, no, it's the same designation. Since we do not know, and have never known, what that designation actually means, it's hard to say how accurate it is.

Common sense. Occam's Razor.

 

[Jesse1066]

So here's the reimagined D7 battlecruiser, as she appears in Star Trek: Discovery. SOURCE

Remember, it's the intent of the people who make Discovery that this is the same ship design as this:

I'm not a huge fan of the ship, but it's not too hard to imagine that the Federation uses the name D7 for multiple Klingon ship classes.

 

[lawman]

So here's the reimagined D7 battlecruiser...

Wow. Being able to see that in its entirety and in detail really doesn't improve it at all.

 

[lawman]

Actually, I imagine it's a little like having two people having a perfectly normal discussion and then suddenly inexplicably breaking into a highly choreographed song and dance number.

Do the characters in musicals KNOW they're in a musical? Do they live in a strange alternate universe where random musical numbers just fucking happen and they just go along with it because that's the way the world works? Is it accepted that some conversations can only be accomplished through a spontaneous and impeccable coordinated flash mob?

Or is there an implicit understanding, even among the audience, the movie is not supposed to be taken strictly literally?

I'm gonna go with No, Yes, Yes, and Partially.

I love musicals. La La Land was one of my favorite movies last year. Glee was one of my favorite shows when it was on TV. Les Mis is one of my favorite stage productions.

But musicals play by a completely different set of rules. They're not comparable to what we're talking about. (It's possible to do a musical that's consistent with the ordinary rules of screen verisimilitude — the musical episode of Buffy stands as the classic example of that, and it's probably my favorite episode of that show — but it takes a lot of effort to pull off.)

There's nothing incompatible about them.

You really don't see how the statements "this is part and parcel of TOS-era Star Trek, it fits right in" and "don't compare it to TOS-era Trek, you can't expect it to be anything like that" are at odds with one another?

 

[Ceridwen]

I'm not a huge fan of the ship, but it's not too hard to imagine that the Federation uses the name D7 for multiple Klingon ship classes.

Given that we've also seen K'tinga-class ships called D7s, that might be the easiest "fix".

Or that dude was just wrong.

Or that ship, since it belongs to a house of "deceivers" and "weavers of lies," could be generating a false signature.

 

[Gonzo]

So here's the reimagined D7 battlecruiser, as she appears in Star Trek: Discovery. SOURCE

Remember, it's the intent of the people who make Discovery that this is the same ship design as this:

I expected them to update it just like they did with the Starfleet ships, however what we got was a complete mess.

Its all just so unecessary.

It is based 10 years in the past so its not impossible that we could see new recognisable designs as time goes by, that could incur the wrath of the canon hammer though.

 

[fireproof78]

it's doing actual damage to that original setting — the one that you and I both consider Trek's gold standard — by asking us to swallow that it was substantively different from how we remember it.

Agree to disagree, since I don't see damage done.

To be more specific, I think it's reasonable to expect the show to deliver something like what it promised — that is, a level of storytelling comparable to other high-profile, high-budget, short-run, serialized programs on streaming services and cable networks. "Prestige TV." Something that can hold its own in terms of writing quality and acting quality and visual quality compared to Game of Thrones or The Expanse or Counterpart any of the other shows that have been mentioned here in the last few pages. Something that one could comfortably recommend to friends who aren't pre-sold Star Trek fans.

Again, agree to disagree. I refuse to compare it to current TV productions. I am comfortable recommending it to non Star Trek friends.

So, this is a different experience for both of us.

 

[lawman]

Again, agree to disagree. I refuse to compare it to current TV productions. I am comfortable recommending it to non Star Trek friends.

Sure, we can agree to disagree on this. You asked what standards I thought were relevant, I did my best to explain concisely; no obligation to see eye-to-eye.

I am a bit puzzled by your statement here, though. The first part seems to suggest that you're judging DSC as part of a special category because it's Star Trek, and you have your own personalized standards that apply there. The second part suggests you'd recommend it to friends who don't have any special attachment to Trek and therefore (unlike you) will compare it to other TV shows, perhaps unfavorably. How do you square those two things?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Common sense. Occam's Razor.

Which one? They're not the same thing.

Common sense tells us that "D7" isn't a Klingon designation because Klingons don't use the English alphabet or numerical system and Occam's Razor would suggest that we're just wrong about what the D7 really looks like.