I see no evidence of that bizarre Abrams fetish in this show. Which is another thing it has going for it.
DSC and the "No Conflict" Rule
- Thread starter Balok's Decoy
- Start date
yeah - ST: D will have nothing but '42' s everywhere.
yeah - ST: D will have nothing but '42' s everywhere.
Don't you mean 47s?
TOS was written for TV, where each episode had a "moral to the story." That is true Trek. You can't compare the movies to that, especially TOS remakes. Since there are years between movies, Hollywood relies on the exact same formula - Angry villain hell bent on revenge and destruction, who, against all odds, must be stopped by our heroes. Add a bunch of Space battles and explosions, lather, rinse, repeat. Same old crap every 3-4 years. The only redeeming quality is it kept Star Trek alive. Faithful to the source material? Not in my eyes.
TOS was first and foremost an action show. From the Writer's Guide written by Roddenberry himself:
The Abrams movies are first and foremost action movies, making them faithful to the source material.
The TOS Writer's Guide is an interesting read. There's a lot of things Roddenberry tried to forbid which ended up becoming staples of the other shows.
There's at least as much a moral to the story in the last two Kelvin films as in most TOS episodes. And just as they had space battles and explosions, TOS had shirtless Kirk pulling off wrestling moves, blowing up computers and wooing scantily clad women.
Kinda worried about the shows future. CBS may kill it before it even airs the way they are going.
Doh! My bad. I guess I'm channeling "Hitchhicker's Guide to the Galaxy" - but I knew Star Trek also had something with a number in the 40ies - so It was 47?
What an outlandish remark. What evidence is there that makes you even for a second think CBS won't go forward with airing the show?
Doh! My bad. I guess I'm channeling "Hitchhicker's Guide to the Galaxy" - but I knew Star Trek also had something with a number in the 40ies - so It was 47?
It would appear to be 47.
And no worries. Just helping my fellow Trek geek.
I'm in the minority here, it seems like what they're saying is that the writers are too lazy to come up with original story telling and they want to keep re-telling the same stories all over and just put them in a futuristic setting of the Star Trek universe.
This just opens up the pandora box to such "exciting" stories as those illuminating the issues of unwanted pregnancies and romantic infidelity, basically the stuff that's on every single other show out there.
I'm lowering my expectations for DSC.
This just opens up the pandora box to such "exciting" stories as those illuminating the issues of unwanted pregnancies and romantic infidelity, basically the stuff that's on every single other show out there.
I'm lowering my expectations for DSC.
Yeah, I'm glad the writers are not going to be challenged anymore.
Um...yeah...right.
That's why:
- They gave the production team more money and time to deliver a more polished, cinematic looking product.
- With the Netflix deal, CBS HAS ALREADY made it's money back on Season 1 production costs and is in profit territory.
Hell, back in 1987 they already had a 'bail out' plan for TNG if it's first season tanked...they'd just add the season to the TOS syndication package and make the production costs back that way over a few years.
Sorry, but ST: D is in much better shape already (profit wise) in 2017 then TNG Season 1 was at this point (3 months) prior to it's premiere back in 1987.
There is an overarching story for season one of Discovery over fifteen episodes. I doubt sincerely they are going to want to tell the same stories again and again, nor do they want to tell the stories you're suggesting. Just because they want to take out this kinda ridiculous box where they have to tell stories in (which, again, was not a part of Star Trek pre-1987) does not mean they can't tell intelligent, thought provoking stories. It just means they can have a little bit of conflict in the crew. I don't think its lazy. It just different. I could absolutely be incorrect though. We'll find out in about three months.
Yeah, we'll see soon enough. I'm very skeptical of one over arching story, if it's a bad story then the whole show is ruined. That's another sign of lazy writing, it's mostly used for cliff hangers at the end of the episode to keep viewers coming back, it's a form of addiction, not good story telling.
But, I could be wrong, maybe it's going to be an amazing story with no cliff hangers at the end of every episode, with original never-before-done conflicts between the crew, deeply rooted in Sci Fi and not Shakespeare.
I'm glad their work won't be as predictable and stale as it was on TNG.
Internal conflict doesn't necessarily mean unwanted pregnancies (by the way, The Child, Body Parts, just sayin) or romantic interludes (Looking for Par'mach, you might say), it just means our main characters can disagree with each other, argue and fall out, without needing a guest star of the week to disagree with. It means fewer incompetent admirals and mad scientists, not more high school musical.
Last edited:
I would love to be enlightened on the moral of the story for The Trouble with Tribbles, Spocks Brain, among others. Actually, I'd love for someone to explain the moral story to Turnabout Intruder.
While it did have it's moral lessons in places, it's not as common as people seem to recall, nor as special since a lot of themes weren't unique. There's a lot of fiction to the Star Trek hype. It's impossible to re-create peoples expectations whenever a new show comes out as those expectations are often not made from reality.
The Trouble With Tribbles: "Remember: ALWAYS spay and neuter your pets."
Spock's Brain: "Don't pick up/allow Hitchhickers into your mode of Transportation."
Turnabout Intruder: "Never be alone with your Ex. (Especially if his/her mental stability is questionable.)"
