Finally Watching Discovery - Was I Supoosed to Hate This?
- Thread starter Mysterion
- Start date
This board? No. Around in other segments of fandom that I've seen? Oh, yeah. TOS is quaint in their view but hardly emulatory.
I think, to be absolutely clear, that the only problem I have with The Template is that it was massively played out. It's not that it was "bad"...heck it carried the franchise for decades...it's just that I'm much more hungry for something else at this point.
It's simply a preference, not a binary "if you're not with us your against us" thing for me.
The Template should come with a plaid shirt and some Doc Martens. Smells like Trek Spirit.
It's like you have a joke, and it's a great joke, maybe the funniest in history, but you can't keep telling the same joke night after night, week after week, year after year, and expect people to keep laughing just as loudly as they did the first time they heard it.
Doesn't mean that there was anything wrong with the joke in the first place.
A
Amaris
Guest
I didn't say it was wrong, nor am I saying they all have to have fully laid out, extensive bios, just that so much was thrown at us in the first two episodes, and then the focus shifted to the Klingon war, the Mirror Universe, and a handful of people, that we were left in the dark on who these people were. They appeared to be important in some way, but we don't know yet.
Maybe they will give us more on the rest of the crew in the second season, but we're still working with the first season.
I just think they wasted a lot of potential. Did we really need the 3 MU episodes in the first 15 episode season? Why did we have a Klingon war that lead all the way up to the front step of Earth and then no one talks about it a handful of years later? In the U.S., the attack on the World Trade Center is still firmly present in all of our popular media, it has affected our national policy, it still affects us on every social and political level, and that was 17 years ago.
Yes, this is all subjective, but for me that does matter, and since I'm talking about what I like and do not like about the show, that plays into my overall judgment. I felt the Klingon War was a stupid decision. If we would have had 1 episode in the MU, I would have been okay with that (though still felt it too soon since we're still establishing our characters for who they are and don't need to step into the MU to see their opposites).
All reasonable opinions to hold, as far as I'm concerned.
From where I'm sitting, whether or not they should have done a Klingon War or an MU plot are separate issues. I was just addressing the criticism, which I've seen here and there over the last year, that DISCO should have fleshed out the bridge crew the way the last four Trek shows did--and that it was at fault for not doing so.
Maybe we were "left in the dark" about the background characters simply because . . .they're mostly just background characters and the show is not about them.
Again, there's no rule that says we have to know about the helmsman or whoever. Heck, any number of TOS eps have just random guest-stars or day players working those posts.
Maybe we were "left in the dark" about the background characters simply because . . .they're mostly just background characters and the show is not about them.
Again, there's no rule that says we have to know about the helmsman or whoever. Heck, any number of TOS eps have just random guest-stars or day players working those posts.
Last edited:
A
Amaris
Guest
Eh, I think the underlying problem is the same. While there were saving graces for the show, some of its problems were in half assed writing. Granted, other Trek shows had frequent wobbly moments their first season (save for TOS which I think was hitting it out of the park from day one), but it's a little different for DSC, as it receives higher criticism. The reason DSC gets that extra scrutiny is because CBS is trying to get people to buy their All Access subscription hinged on that premise of higher quality. Plus, the script is the least expensive, easiest to change option.
One word: Xindi. No one ever refers to the attack on Earth in TOS, TNG, DS9, or VOY. No, it wasn't "recent" but it was still never brought up even historically. The Xindi haven't even been mentioned on DSC and I'd be surprised if they ever are, because it'll have nothing to do with whatever story they're telling. But that's the nature of writing a prequel. Sometimes things are added in. If it's something a viewer can't accept as part of the nature of something being a prequel, then they shouldn't be watching prequels.
But the phenomenon isn't limited to just prequels. On VOY, in the Pathfinder episodes, no one ever brings up The Dominion War having just ended. The Dominion War isn't brought up because it's not relevant to the story.
As far as "Errand of Mercy" and DSC, why does Kirk need to tell the Organians about the entire history of the war between the Federation and the Klingons? It's clear to the Organians that the Federation and Klingons are enemies from the way Kirk presents his arguments. The Organians don't care about Earth. They don't give a shit about it. Kirk has to persuade them by telling them what they'll do to their world.
But the phenomenon isn't limited to just prequels. On VOY, in the Pathfinder episodes, no one ever brings up The Dominion War having just ended. The Dominion War isn't brought up because it's not relevant to the story.
As far as "Errand of Mercy" and DSC, why does Kirk need to tell the Organians about the entire history of the war between the Federation and the Klingons? It's clear to the Organians that the Federation and Klingons are enemies from the way Kirk presents his arguments. The Organians don't care about Earth. They don't give a shit about it. Kirk has to persuade them by telling them what they'll do to their world.
A
Amaris
Guest
ENT is my least favorite series.
VOY is my second least favorite series.
Why wouldn't he? If we met an alien presence that told us to stop fighting radical Islam extremists, we sure as hell would tell them what they did less than 20 years prior, don't you think? Moreso if what they did was decimate a significant portion of the country before reaching our seat of power. That would be burned into our memories. We still talk about Pearl Harbor. You see constant documentaries on WWI, WWII, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Civil War, and that was 150 years ago! There's no way a war so costly that it nearly crushed the Federation less than 10 years before would be omitted when bringing up reasons to give to an alien culture why they need to understand that peace may not be possible.
I don't like ENT at all. But that's irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make.
Great.
He wouldn't because he didn't. And the Organians wouldn't care. Kirk already paints a picture of what the Klingons would do to the worlds they capture. And guess what? They captured Federation worlds. So they know. It's very likely the space the Klingons captured is still being disputed even in "Errand of Mercy". Oh wait, sorry, Kor has something to say. "They're not disputed! They're clearly ours!" Thanks, Kor.
What this comes down to is fans having assumptions about what the 23rd Century is like, only having an incomplete picture and not liking what they see when that picture is filled in better.
Last edited:
A
Amaris
Guest
No it isn't, because we're going by my opinion on why I don't like some of the directions taken in DSC. It's entirely relevant.
Not really, and that's the problem. The pattern here is that I don't like half assed or lazy writing in most cases. That applies to Star Trek especially.
Have you been there? No? Oh, well then you don't know what the 23rd century is like, and neither do the showrunners. It's fiction, but I can complain about what I consider lazy writing, and half-assed plot direction. There were elements of the first season I loved: the Spore Drive was a fascinating new method of space travel. Several characters were wonderful right off: Tilly and Stamets come to mind immediately. The visuals were often top notch. My biggest problem with the series, though, at this point is the writing and plot direction. Notice how I'm not tearing down the show like "ragaragaraga, arr my canon!" but am pointing out that some of their choices were stupid, because I do believe a 3 episode excursion into the Mirror Universe while in their first season, a 15 episode season, was foolish.
I am also against yet another war arc. I love DS9, but I was burned out on war by the time the series was over, and then we had VOY and its Borg encounters, and ENT with its Xindi war arc. So here we have a new series based on a new kind of exploration. What do we get? A war arc with the Klingons, one that takes up the entire first season. That is a major strike in my book. Read again: a major strike in my book. You can love it all day long, and that's great, but I don't.
Not a problem. I agree to disagree.
A
Amaris
Guest
That works for me, too. I'm hoping season two gives us more exploration and less war/MU/Section 31. I dread the possibility that Section 31 may play a significant part in this show.
The people of Kirk's era talk about the war all the time. You just don't see it on the screen.
And it's clear there's a history with the Klingons. Kirk seemingly has first hand has knowledge of their brutality. He tells Garth that "there was a time when war was necessary and you were our greatest warrior. " It's easy to believe he's speaking about the conflict depicted in DSC.
But, given your exchange with @Lord Garth above, clearly this isn't going to be a discussion. You're here to tell us how stupid the show is (which is of course always appreciated and productive) not to have a debate about it.
A
Amaris
Guest
You're right. I should have said what I liked about it, or why I didn't like some of the decisions made. If only I'd written that somewhere in my exchanges with Lord Garth, but you caught me, even when I told everyone how stupid they were for liking DSC. I mean, I don't even see it anywhere, which means you found my secret message spelled out entirely in the placement of periods throughout the post.
Now you're catching on. Good for you!
Thanks for instructing me as to what my post was supposed to be about. All the same, you're excused. I was stating my opinion, not offering comfort. Trust me, I shan't make that mistake again.
No doubt..no doubt. Just thought there were some points of worthy debate, and suspected that such an exchange might not actually be welcome.
Similar threads
