Drop the S31 show for a Captain Pike show?

[Lord Garth]

But you have that on DSC and it hasn’t really worked.

Hasn't really worked in your opinion. It doesn't happen to be mine.

These newcomers feel they need a legacy framework to compromise upon, whereas RDM has said he’d just reboot the whole thing and figure out everything on the page.

Kind of odd to go from "Those damn kids!" to "The old guy will just come up with a whole new thing!" He won't. He'll just do his version of what's been done before. With the third season of DSC, we're truly going into Uncharted Territory.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

nBSG didn’t become The Orville, and Outlander (an adaptation, but still a project he chose to do) is a historical romance with a touch of fantasy. Section 31 was invented as a foil on DS9, and now there should be an entire series about it? That’s the sense they’re getting of where ST needs to go?

All I’m seeing are riffs on what came before, breaking TNG’s precedent of earlier installments as period pieces, keeping Star Trek fresh by going forward and sweeping the past under the rug. Why just lift the rug, dust off the floor and give it a new paint job, when you’re free to build the next house? We’re talking about keeping Star Trek relevant, but the solution is to weave between the good-old?

Yes, the time jump has the potential to make things interesting, if it doesn’t become mostly a game of “where are they now?”, with more false starts and retooling.

 

[Alan Roi]

nBSG didn’t become The Orville, and Outlander (an adaptation, but still a project he chose to do) is a historical romance with a touch of fantasy. Section 31 was invented as a foil on DS9, and now there should be an entire series about it? That’s the sense they’re getting of where ST needs to go?

All I’m seeing are riffs on what came before, breaking TNG’s precedent of earlier installments as period pieces, keeping Star Trek fresh by going forward and sweeping the past under the rug. Why just lift the rug, dust off the floor and give it a new paint job, when you’re free to build the next house? We’re talking about keeping Star Trek relevant, but the solution is to weave between the good-old?

Yes, the time jump has the potential to make things interesting, if it doesn’t become mostly a game of “where are they now?”, with more false starts and retooling.

Inventing a whole new paradigm for BSG didn't actually work For Ron Moore, as within a couple seasons it was being driven into the ground. Star Trek is a Franchise that has been enjoyed for generations and it is useful to recognize that whenever one is creating something new from it. Just look at, say the James Bond franchise.

However, you are also missing a point, which is each season of Discovery is a single story, like a Star Trek novel. So the whole imagining the show is 'restarting' or retooling is the same thing as watching 3 different episodes of TOS and claiming the same thing. No, season 3 is just story 3. Its like saying Star Trek Retooled and false-started between Balance of Terror, The Ultimate Machine and Assignment:Earth. No, no it didn't.

As for a Section 31 series, its long overdue that Star Trek starts branching out from a bunch of officers on a ship to exploring what actually goes on off a Starfleet vessel. Yeah, DS9 did that a bit, but not a whole lot. We've seen the ship and crew idea be also ground into the dirt, so some variety is called for, and frankly I've been wishing this to happen for decades.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

nBSG and LOST both resolved their arcs poorly, but not at the expense of strong character development and acting which is missing from DSC. The show wasn’t intended as a seasonal retooling with the same characters; an actual anthology would be different.

Yes, Star Trek does need more variety, but Section 31, a shadow organization invented as late as DS9 subverting the whole notion of an optimistic, romanticized-wagon-train future as something that couldn’t exist without their spidery help behind-the-scenes? It’s Star Trek; why the cynicism?

 

[BillJ]

But you have that on DSC and it hasn’t really worked.

While it doesn't work for me, it is something that is in the eye of the beholder. There are folks out there that think it does work.

It’s Star Trek; why the cynicism?

Because that is where the world is at, and what people want to see. First and foremost, Star Trek is a brand that's only use to CBS is to draw eyeballs and make money.

Cynicism draws eyeballs.

 

[Rahul]

While it doesn't work for me, it is something that is in the eye of the beholder. There are folks out there that think it does work.

The metric that counts in this case is "does it work for the people owning it". To which the answer is a resounding "kinda', but nor really". It's doing certainly enough to have them convinced they can use Trek as the main pillar for their streaming service. But at the same time, they wouldn't retool it/incorporate fan feedback this much if it were truly doing gangbusters.

Now this metric is of course anything but objective either - Beyond made a shitton of money. They just had expectations waaay off, and burned way too much money making the movie, srinking their profit margins.

But nevertheless - they trust in the Trek brand. They didn't build their Streaming service on the "NCIS" franchise, and they aren't changing gears either.

 

[BillJ]

But at the same time, they wouldn't retool it/incorporate fan feedback this much if it were truly doing gangbusters.

I'm on the fence about whether it is suffering and they are retooling it, or whether it is a creative decision. If the show was suffering in viewership, I would expect an adjusted budget to go along with the retooling. Might just be they've exploited the 23rd century for all its realistically worth.

The only ones who know for sure whether or not Discovery is doing the job it needs to do is CBS.

 

[Lord Garth]

Limited time today, so I'll address these, then I'm out.

nBSG didn’t become The Orville, and Outlander (an adaptation, but still a project he chose to do) is a historical romance with a touch of fantasy.

Ron Moore worked on DS9, so when he did BSG, he basically did what he couldn't do on DS9. The Orville has nothing to do with anything in his case.

In fact, I'd even say he agreed to do the new BSG as a big "fuck you" to B&B. He wrote all about the bad experience he had with VOY. Read about it here. BSG was his chance to do a space show again and a lot of what he had on his mind was "I'll make a better show than Brannon Braga and I'm going to do everything Rick Berman can't stand, hates, and wouldn't let me do!"

A new showrunner, like Michelle Paradise, won't carry that kind of negative baggage while plotting out the third season of DSC. Neither did the showrunners before her.

Do you know what Ron Moore is likely to do with a reboot of Star Trek? He never got to work on TOS, but TOS is his favorite Trek series. More so than his peers on the writing staff of either TNG or DS9. He would reboot TOS. He'd re-imagine TOS episodes in BSG style and tell other new "TOS" stories in BSG style. That's what he'd do.

Section 31 was invented as a foil on DS9, and now there should be an entire series about it? That’s the sense they’re getting of where ST needs to go?

If Section 31 wasn't just one series out of several they want to make, I'd agree with you. But it's not the only thing they're doing.

All I’m seeing are riffs on what came before, breaking TNG’s precedent of earlier installments as period pieces, keeping Star Trek fresh by going forward and sweeping the past under the rug.

TNG is not the only way of doing things. But it's clear that method is completely drilled into you. Let me put it to you this way then: since DSC is doing a 1,000-year time jump, it's going massively forward and "the past" will now be so long ago that what happened in it won't matter.

 

[Rahul]

If the show was suffering in viewership, I would expect an adjusted budget to go along with the retooling.

Do we actually have any numbers for the budgets of season 2 compared to season 1? Because for my (non-expert) eyes, it looked like season 2 had:

1. A vastly lower budget than season1, but
2. Made much, MUCH better use of it.

Like, the only actually completely newly built set I spotted was the Enterprise bridge (which was glorious!). But they did a LOT of very, very clever re-uses and re-dresses - the Shenzhou bridge to the S31 bridge, the transporter room to the Ba'Ul ship, the Klingon prison cell into a bridge in the finale, bits and pieces of the Sarcophagus ship into the Klingon council chamber and the Talosian hide-out, the Federation prison cell into Spock's quarters and so forth. Plus more bottle shows set on the ship. They also filmed a lot more on "regular" present day locations - an evangelical church, a standard American "Gothic" church set as the Klingon monastry, a big warehouse as the place where they catched the red angel, a regular modern house for Vulcan, and they filmed at the quarry for Talos and Kaminar, instead of going to Jordan.

Overall, it seemed they made much, much better use of their resources - focusing on putting important stuff on screen, instead of lots of stuff - no entire new Klingon/Federation fleets, but few important designs (Section 31 ship, the D7, and the squid probe) - and re-used literally everything they had in a way it looked like something completely distinct and new, and could go wild in the first and final episode with big CGI battles/asteroid rides.

 

[BillJ]

Do we actually have any numbers for the budgets of season 2 compared to season 1? Because for my (non-expert) eyes, it looked like season 2 had:

1. A vastly lower budget than season1, but

Usually, if there is a budget cut on a major property, the Hollywood press is all over it. Since I haven't seen anything that indicates there was a cut, I will go with the idea that they had roughly the same budget as season one.

And season three will be interesting from a budget perspective as they will have to build a lot of things from scratch to depict a 33rd century that is different from the 23rd. Essentially, they will be starting over except for what is already built for the Discovery.

 

[Jadeb]

I'm on the fence about whether it is suffering and they are retooling it, or whether it is a creative decision. If the show was suffering in viewership, I would expect an adjusted budget to go along with the retooling. Might just be they've exploited the 23rd century for all its realistically worth.

The only ones who know for sure whether or not Discovery is doing the job it needs to do is CBS.

In a cynical moment, I'd entertain the notion that they're simply going down the list of things they think casual fans are most likely to pay to see. In season one, they started with a Klingon war, tossed in Harry Mudd, then went to the MU before ending with the Enterprise. For season two, we got Pike, Section 31, the search for Spock, the visit to Talos IV, and, finally, the Enterprise bridge, all very carefully rationed out over the course of the season. What next? Let's go see what the future looks like. What fan could resist that? And the dramatic change in premise suggests that if you haven't enjoyed the show so far, you might now. All very good for the bottom line.

 

[BillJ]

In a cynical moment, I'd entertain the notion that they're simply going down the list of things they think casual fans are most likely to pay to see.

I don't think that is cynical. They are trying to sell subscriptions.

 

[Rahul]

Usually, if there is a budget cut on a major property, the Hollywood press is all over it. Since I haven't seen anything that indicates there was a cut, I will go with the idea that they had roughly the same budget as season one.

And season three will be interesting from a budget perspective as they will have to build a lot of things from scratch to depict a 33rd century that is different from the 23rd. Essentially, they will be starting over except for what is already built for the Discovery.

Absolute fair assessment. But also - Fuller blew a lot of money, so getting that reigned in a little doesn't seem like too big a story. Also - the press going over it would actually need to have any numbers publiced at all.

I know the numbers (or rough estimates) of an episode's budget of season 1 are public. But - as far as I know - there has not been a single information or leak about season 2's numbers?

"Roughly equal" is still probably the best guess - as I said, they built a lot less new assets. But at the same time, they had lots of CGI, and everything looked a lot more polished.

In a cynical moment, I'd entertain the notion that they're simply going down the list of things they think casual fans are most likely to pay to see. In season one, they started with a Klingon war, tossed in Harry Mudd, then went to the MU before ending with the Enterprise. For season two, we got Pike, Section 31, the search for Spock, the visit to Talos IV, and, finally, the Enterprise bridge, all very carefully rationed out over the course of the season. What next? Let's go see what the future looks like. What fan could resist that? And the dramatic change in premise suggests that if you haven't enjoyed the show so far, you might now. All very good for the bottom line.

My personal theory is rather - the show is, what the creators are familiar with and interested in. Bryan Fuller was very much into Klingons, as he said from childhood on, but also as a writer on VOY. And many of his other works also have fantastical and crude horror-like settings with monsters and psychopaths - combined with his love for Halloween, that he himself was drawn to the idea of the Mirror Universe doesn't seem far fetched to me at all.

Alex Kurtzman on the other hand already extensively researched Spock, and also Pike, when he was writing the JJ movies. Where they also put an entirely new spin on Section 31 - one that seems to almost have directly been carried over from "Into Darkness". And themes of "personal sacrifice", and "trust in people instead of institution", up to specific plot points like "psychopath being forced to work for gouvernment agency, is willing to sacrifice himself for his compagnions" are littered through his work from the Transformers movies to Fringe and whatnot.

I have no idea what Michelle Paradise's favourite topics and plot elements are. But I guess those will be the ones shaping season 3. More so than specific notes of "include this or that element".

 

[Greg Cox]

My personal theory is rather - the show is, what the creators are familiar with and interested in. Bryan Fuller was very much into Klingons, as he said from childhood on, but also as a writer on VOY. And many of his other works also have fantastical and crude horror-like settings with monsters and psychopaths - combined with his love for Halloween, that he himself was drawn to the idea of the Mirror Universe doesn't seem far fetched to me at all.

That's a very astute observation. You see this in comics all the time; every twenty years or so, a new generation of comics writers and artists can't resist reviving the characters and themes that excited them when they were young fans, just because they can. And, yes, all authors have their pet themes and characters and obsessions which they're going to gravitate to even in the context of an established franchise.

When I was writing all those DC Comics novelizations several years back, there's a reason I played up the spooky characters like the Spectre and Zatanna and cut Lobo out of the books entirely. Writers play favorites, because why write about characters or themes that don't interest you personally?

 

[Rahul]

That's a very astute observation. You see this in comics all the time; every twenty years or so, a new generation of comics writers and artists can't resist reviving the characters and themes that excited them when they were young fans, just because they can. And, yes, all authors have their pet themes and characters and obsessions which they're going to gravitate to even in the context of an established franchise.

When I was writing all those DC Comics novelizations several years back, there's a reason I played up the mystical characters like the Spectre and Zatanna and cut Lobo out of the books entirely. Writers play favorites, because why write about characters or themes that don't interest you personally?

Hell yeah! If I had the change to make my imaginary Star Trek show, it would probably be filled to the brim with "civlisations taken over by computers", "weird space monster that aren't what they seem to be at first glance", and time-travel stories that are more interested in the minutae and mechanics of time-travel, rather than to actually go to another place.

Also, lots of very obscure stuff, like Aliens with weirdly colored skin tones, more robots and mind illusions, bright uniforms, and computer screens in orange/yellow/green instead of "SF-light-blue". All stuff that Star Trek has dropped since TOS, but I'm still weirdly fascinated by and missing dearly.

 

[Greg Cox]

As a kid I was always fascinated by "Assignment: Earth," so what did I do when I got a chance to write actual Trek novels. Bring Gary Seven and Roberta Lincoln back, of course, three times!

 

[fireproof78]

Yes, Star Trek does need more variety, but Section 31, a shadow organization invented as late as DS9 subverting the whole notion of an optimistic, romanticized-wagon-train future as something that couldn’t exist without their spidery help behind-the-scenes? It’s Star Trek; why the cynicism?

It's not cynicism whole cloth. It's trying to challenge the optimism and seeing if that POV comes out wanting and or the more positive way. It is a storyline that is absolutely needed in this day and age and the fact that it gets reduced in criticism as just "a cynical view" is short changing a potentially interesting and challenging story addition to the Star Trek universe.

I'm on the fence about whether it is suffering and they are retooling it, or whether it is a creative decision. If the show was suffering in viewership, I would expect an adjusted budget to go along with the retooling. Might just be they've exploited the 23rd century for all its realistically worth.

I think that Kurtzman was getting his feet under him and figuring out what he wanted to do with Star Trek. I don't think it is retooling either; rather just cementing this new vision after all the BTS drama and changes.

In a cynical moment, I'd entertain the notion that they're simply going down the list of things they think casual fans are most likely to pay to see. In season one, they started with a Klingon war, tossed in Harry Mudd, then went to the MU before ending with the Enterprise. For season two, we got Pike, Section 31, the search for Spock, the visit to Talos IV, and, finally, the Enterprise bridge, all very carefully rationed out over the course of the season.

That's what the fandom has indicated they want. What a surprise that the production teams took their cues from fans interest...

 

[Rahul]

First of all, I think we need to put the notion to rest that a "retool" has to be something inherintly negative, or only take place because something failed. It often happens when people behind the scenes change, want to put their personal spin on it, or simply think another approach would work better.

"Thor: Ragnarok" was a BIG retool of the "Thor" franchise, after "Thor: Dark World" before was more of a refinement of the formula. The same way "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" was a bit retool after the first Captain America, wheras "CA:Civil War" continued on the path of "Winter Soldier". None of these franchise were anywhere close to failing when these happened.

As such, it's undeniable that what happened at the end of season 2 was a major retooling of the series. Bigger than any other retooling any previous Trek series ever had. That's not a judgement, that's just a neutral observation.

Where the personal judgement comes in is - I didn't like the way they did it. It was overly on-the-nose, and felt both very forced and rushed at the same time. And I don't see how it will improve the show, compared to the smaller refinements that happened over the course of season 2, which did improve my personal enjoyment of the show.

But that being said - I also didn't like the way the Enterprise was introduced/shoved in in the final minutes at the end of season 1, and felt that was more distracting/taking away from the show itself. But then very much enjoyed how they actually did handle the whole thing over the course of season 2.

What I'm saying is, I'll try to keep an open mind. But season 2 will have to try to convince me personally to watch it completely anew, whereas if they had stayed in their version of the 23rd century, I would have stayed as a fan of the show as established over the course of season 2.

 

[Noname Given]

Ron Moore.

(ack - beaten to the punch).

Personally, I got sick and tired of Moore's Viking/Samurai Klingon stories. That's pretty much all he did - even on DS9.

But that being said - I also didn't like the way the Enterprise was introduced/shoved in in the final minutes at the end of season 1, and felt that was more distracting/taking away from the show itself. But then very much enjoyed how they actually did handle the whole thing over the course of season 2.

^^^
Different strokes for different folks - because as a TOS fan I LOVED it. She's been talking about Spock all season, so to have his ship show up at the end of season 1 (with Pike hailing) was a f**king masterstroke.

 

[Greg Cox]

Yes, Star Trek does need more variety, but Section 31, a shadow organization invented as late as DS9 subverting the whole notion of an optimistic, romanticized-wagon-train future as something that couldn’t exist without their spidery help behind-the-scenes? It’s Star Trek; why the cynicism?

Personally, I think you always need a healthy dose of cynicism just to keep TREK grounded in reality and not too pie-in-the-sky "utopian."

That's kind of why you had McCoy in TOS, to drag things down to Earth occasionally and sound a more cynical note: "In my experience, evil tends to triumph over good, unless is good is very, very careful" etc.

(Seven of Nine arguably serves the same purpose in VOYAGER, to add a bit of edge and attitude and to challenge Janeway's Starfleet idealism.)