• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Haters of Star Trek: Discovery - wtf?

Do you already hate Discovery?

  • Yes

    Votes: 18 9.0%
  • No

    Votes: 183 91.0%

  • Total voters
    201
I just have never seen a good one.

I have, honestly.

Like for example, as a Babylon 5 fan, "In the Beginning" is for me what Advent Children is to Final Fantasy fans :)

At worst, you can smell from a mile away the whole direction everything is going.

If I'm being honest, I can with ALL fiction.

For me, nothing is particularly surprising - but I love to watch/read, because it's the journey getting there that is more important.

I still have the same emotional reactions when watching my favorite episodes of Star Trek, or Farscape, or Stargate SG-1, because what was good drama then, still is now. It's like watching your favorite Shakespeare play - you notice new facets, intentional or not, every time - all of which deepen your appreciation.

Which is not very exciting to watch. At best they are fun extended material to the original. But they are just that - extended material. They are never really independent. I love Enterprise season 4 like the next Trekkie. But try showing that shit to someone who doesn't know what a Tellarite is. It just doesn't work.

That is an example of a prequel that requires past familiarity - not all do.

Whatever they are, there are severe creative restrictions and a built-in expectation of how events have to unfold by the audience.

I don't believe a good writer will be constrained. After all, everyone loves WW2 movies, despite knowing "how it ends".

I certainly like flashbacks/prequel-episodes and stuff like that. When someone has a really good and rock-solid idea about a past event (like that TNG episode with the Enterprise-C). But usually prequels are a recipe for writers not knowing what to do, fucking around in their restricted lore they have themselves boxed in, and uncapable of changing or adjust to tone and direction of a series if it doesn't work because otherwise it would remove them from the pre-planned course they have commited to.

There are some restrictions, but I don't think they are game-breaking. When it comes to January, just try to enjoy it for what it is. You might find you really love it, in spite of all this.
 
For people who think a prequel is going to somehow look too advanced for TOS, I posted some fun things in another thread, about how actually, TOS's technology is still gloriously far in advance of what we, as a species, are capable of right now - here are some fun speculations from that thread (not that Star Trek needs justifying, but hey, its nice):


When Enterprise came out, I remember a lot of people objected to the NX-01 supposedly looking more advanced than later ships (presumably just because the CGI model had more hull detailing), but that was missing the point - it's function that makes something more advanced, not appearance - it may well be that technology in 50 years will go back to looking like some sort of Bakelite-phone from the 1950s, but if it's also something capable of direct neural interface with your brain, it is unarguably far more advanced than some glassy designer Samsung smartphone of today. Now a small few have expressed similar sentiments about DSC, it might be time for a reminder of why Kirk's ship would wipe the floor with earlier ones.

Let's begin the fun:

640


This tablet computer might be as advanced in functionality as any TNG-era PADD. We see them sometimes used with a stylus, meaning they have the ability to record text from written input. Their bulky form, aside from just being the Federation's aesthetic preference in this period, may be armored for survival in shipboard battle situations, where things are easily knocked off work surfaces. One may assume that the ship is fully networked via militarily-secure wireless connections, or perhaps the crew connect to the main computer via hardpoints to prevent signal intercept.

LNPYoZp.jpg


hVyMHuI.jpg


The hull armor of a TOS era Constitution class ship does not resemble that of earlier or later eras, being somewhat smoother in appearance. Klingon and Romulan technology of this era also follows the same trend in generational design. In Enterprise, we see an example of a TOS era ship easily dispatching the most advanced starships of Archer's era into oblivion. It's phaser systems, sustained beams of tremendous power, cut through the most advanced Vulcan ships of the era. It's torpedoes are almost one-hit killers. I would speculate that the bright Duranium hull-plating of the TOS era was a very effective leap in starship technology, that improved survivability immensely, even without energy shields. It's almost organic curves may be an indication of advanced material sciences, such as large scale 3D printing. As an aside it also looks very pleasingly NASA-like.

CgxCMKn.jpg


pjuKUwr.jpg


6GYwguS.jpg


aQipP0c.jpg


The weaponry and energy shields of this era were utterly devastating by the standards of current science. In ENT, a phase pistol, one of the first directed energy beam weapons, was capable of inflicting minor burns, killing or stunning someone. By TOS, a phaser could outright vaporize a living target with massive levels of directed energy. Phaser wounds and burns were feared by doctors, who would presumably sometimes have to deal with partially vaporized victims, who were still alive, but may have lost entire portions of their musculature, skeletal structure, or skin - which would all conduct the devastating heat along their structure. The systems fitted aboard starships were no less devastating, capable of obliterating continents from orbit. More impressive still, starships were able to project electromagnetic fields around themselves in a bubble, in such strength, that they would literally stop these energy discharges like charge particles entering a planet's magnetic field. The loss of such a vessel, and detonation of it's matter-antimatter reserves posed a radiation threat to entire solar systems.

ZqvPrz0.jpg


3sRIuz8.jpg


The "duotronic" computer systems and circuitry onboard a Constitution class starship operated on a new principle beyond "electronic" circuitry, perhaps even combining other forms of charged particles such as antimatter positrons, or perhaps using more than one quantum state of electron (hence duo), to more effectively transmit signals or perform computations at the quantum level. By The Next Generation, they had been further replaced by a new paradigm shift in science - "isolinear" circuitry, with incredible data storage potential on each isolinear chip or rod - and even more advanced Optical Data Networks (ODN), which by the launch of the Intrepid-class, used elements of organic technology, in the form of "bio-neural gel packs".

aJTO7Ji.jpg


Some technology may be bulky to harden it against electronic attack. It may even be a form of radiation hardening for those disastrous times when high levels of hard radiation penetrate a starship's skin - tablet computers will still function and not be damaged by ionization. Imagine a fatal dose of gamma or beta radiation getting through the shields - crew trapped in a sealed compartment, only to find their PADD has been fried by the EM spectrum. The only materials we know that can stop this are extremely dense - but in TOS, they may have developed a lighter foam that deflects hard radiation. This foam may have the same consistency as papier mache or wood :)


IeSv5VD.jpg


umZRmwa.jpg


Ever wondered how a phaser conducts devastating amounts of energy toward a target, without super-heating the air around the person firing? Why people don't flinch from the heat of their weapon? I seem to remember something in one of the technical manuals suggesting that the phaser fires reactant particles at a target, but keeps them separate via an energy field, until they strike. This would explain how energy capable of vaporizing bone and radiating over an entire person's body does not also cause people to visibly flinch from discharge heat - the two parts of the magnetic field only break down and allow the meeting of the reactants upon contact with a solid object. The heat of a low-energy setting for example would break upon the surface, and diffuse through a rock, without also causing a flame-thrower-like effect in the air.
 
Last edited:
It was unnecessary but the writers can't help themselves, sooner or later they do that kind of stuff.

I mean for example, I can understand that the federation forgot about the ferengi , especially since they never got around to say who they were (wink wink) but the BORG!!! How can anyone forget about the borg?
Section 31 deleted the records, enlistment might decline if folks knew of the space zombies
 
Section 31 deleted the records, enlistment might decline if folks knew of the space zombies

I don't believe that. With a threat like the borg the best politics is to get prepared (doing research, designing weapons) not to bury your head in the sand.
 
I have, honestly.

Like for example, as a Babylon 5 fan, "In the Beginning" is for me what Advent Children is to Final Fantasy fans :)

That would be a perfect example of where both a) previous familiarity with the content is required and b) I said I would never mind a single prequel episode, just a whole open-ended prequel series :)

If I'm being honest, I can with ALL fiction.

For me, nothing is particularly surprising - but I love to watch/read, because it's the journey getting there that is more important.

That's probably true to most of us for most of fiction. But I was for example genuinly surprised by what happened to Ned Stark, or some of the twists in Battlestar Galactica. The former - character drama - would still be possible in a prequel series. Tha latter - unexpected plot twists in a story arc - not so much. Or just for very minor plot events.

I still have the same emotional reactions when watching my favorite episodes of Star Trek, or Farscape, or Stargate SG-1, because what was good drama then, still is now. It's like watching your favorite Shakespeare play - you notice new facets, intentional or not, every time - all of which deepen your appreciation.

That is very interesting, but I'm just different there. For me, nothing comes close to watching a movie or reading a book for the first time. You notice smaller facets and details during re-watches, but emotionally it's mostly just a reminder of what was felt the first time those events were experienced. A nice memory, but not comparable in effect.

Also, I generally find television much less re-watchable than movies. Movies are much more thought through, and more time was spent on the details. Television is usually a very rushed and raw development, and the flaws and inevitable mistakes get more and more glaring the more often you watch them.


I don't believe a good writer will be constrained. After all, everyone loves WW2 movies, despite knowing "how it ends".

But that's mostly character drama, not plot drama. This is true for almost all historical movies. Nobody is going to watch WW2 movies and wonders how the war will end. They wonder what will happen to those particular set of characters.

Science fiction on the other hand is often much more plot driven. I also cared for what happened to the characters in Battlestar Galactica or Stargate. But mostly I was interested in how the general plot will develop: Will the Galactica find earth? How will the Zylon-human conflict end? Will the Goa'uld ever be defeated? How will the Asgard-Replicant conflict end?

I watch scifi mostly for the plots. The characters for me mostly serve as a window to that world. I love Isaac Asimovs books more than many other things. But he never really cared about characters, the books were mostly about the plots (aka robots and how humans interact with them), not so much about what happened to the characters. If I want to see character drama there are usually better alternatives, for example historicals. Not scifi.

There are some restrictions, but I don't think they are game-breaking. When it comes to January, just try to enjoy it for what it is. You might find you really love it, in spite of all this.

Of course I will be giving Discovery a chance. I might even really like it. For example I was a really big fan of the latter Enterprise. But even there, I mostly liked the new, unexpected things (like the Xindi conflict, the Romulan drones, the change in Vulcan traditions or the Terra prime conflict), all of which were massively critizised by fans for "not fitting into the established timeline".

That will be a major obstacle to overcome for Discovery: I generally don't care that much for character drama in science fiction. And the plot will be severely limited in it's possibilities because of the prequel-setting.

If the series indeed will be entertaining and focuses much on exploration (as it's hinted at), chances are I will be pleasently surprised by some unexpected developments and innovative ideas. If it's on the other hand a prequel, setting the path for events in the later series, I will be disappointed. Either way, if I end up liking the new series it will be despite it's prequel setting, certainly not because of it.
 
Last edited:
Actually most fans I know share your preference for the later seasons of Enterprise, and found them ultimately less jarring than the Temporal Cold War - the Xindi arc, which you liked, would be a perfect example of how large plot twists of the type you describe can still happen - we may know how WW2 ends, but we don't know how the Guns of Navarone were destroyed.
 
Actually most fans I know share your preference for the later seasons of Enterprise, and found them ultimately less jarring than the Temporal Cold War - the Xindi arc, which you liked, would be a perfect example of how large plot twists of the type you describe can still happen - we may know how WW2 ends, but we don't know how the Guns of Navarone were destroyed.

I think the temporal cold war doesn't make any sense. Anything you do to change your past is likely to erase you from existence.
 
I think the temporal cold war doesn't make any sense. Anything you do to change your past is likely to erase you from existence.

If there is something akin to a media god in this universe, he will not inflict us with time travel on our new Trek show.

I'll light some herb now in reverence to him.
 
Nobody is hating Discovery as a whole yet. We have only limited information about it. We don't know the greater picture yet. That doesn't mean we aren't allowed to have opinion about said little pieces.

On other hand, there's something to be said for not jumping the gun and worrying about every latest bit of news months in advance. And while your post didn't fall into this trap, and came with all the appropriate qualifications, the internet has a unfortunate habit of making sweeping predictions of doom based on a few stray scraps of info.

I swear to God, I once saw somebody predict that an upcoming movie was going to flop based on nothing more than a leaked toy commercial. ("See! I knew this movie was going to suck!")

The new show will be here soon enough. I'm understandably curious about it, but I wouldn't presume to judge it until I see the final product . . . which flies in the face of the entire history of the internet, I know. :)

(He says, channeling his inner curmudgeon: "In my day, damnit, we made do with the occasional STARLOG article and didn't think that we had to weigh in on every little detail about some new TV show that wasn't even on the air yet.")
 
Actually most fans I know share your preference for the later seasons of Enterprise, and found them ultimately less jarring than the Temporal Cold War - the Xindi arc, which you liked, would be a perfect example of how large plot twists of the type you describe can still happen - we may know how WW2 ends, but we don't know how the Guns of Navarone were destroyed.

Indeed, it's certainly still possible. But it still seems much more forced. They needed to introduce a "temporal cold war" aspect into the whole Xindi-arc, just so that you knew it would theoretically be possible the Xindi conflict will end different than expected.

But that basically only works once. You can't introduce time travel in every conflict, and that's why I even prefer ENT S3 to S4, because in S4 you pretty much knew the direction it was headed (the only interesting things were really HOW the races came together to found the Federation).

Again, I like Enterprise. It was a very nice idea to explore the prequel idea once. But Discovery feels like it has the same basic premise, as if it were Enterprise v.2.0 - the Bryan Fuller take. Almost as if after Voyager they would make another series where a ship is lost somewhere in the galaxy, but promise "this time we're doing it different".
 
On other hand, there's something to be said for not jumping the gun and worrying about every latest bit of news months in advance. And while your post didn't fall into this trap, and came with all the appropriate qualifications, the internet has a unfortunate habit of making sweeping predictions of doom based on a few stray scraps of info.

I swear to God, I once saw somebody predict that an upcoming movie was going to flop based on nothing more than a leaked toy commercial. ("See! I knew this movie was going to suck!")

The new show will be here soon enough. I'm understandably curious about it, but I wouldn't presume to judge it until I see the final product . . . which flies in the face of the entire history of the internet, I know. :)

(He says, channeling his inner curmudgeon: "In my day, damnit, we made do with the occasional STARLOG article and didn't think that we had to weigh in on every little detail about some new TV show that wasn't even on the air yet.")

Yeah, the thing is I put my opinions in quite a bit of context. That seriously took some time, and to be honest I would much more prefer to jump right to the meat of the argument or opinion. And that would be in my case: "the ship looks ugly and I don't like the prequel setting". Which is exactly what many others have expressed and got critizised for being "overly negative". (Doesn't help that my joy about the prime universe setting is already burried many days ago in long dead threads).

I don't worry too much about the serie as a whole (although, who am I kidding, I do :guffaw:), but I just saw a teaser recently and heard about the setting, and voiced my opinions on them (ship - ugly, name and style - okay, prime universe - excellent, prequel - not a fan)
 
TV drama in our day and age focuses almost entirely upon character. Plots are basically soap-like, and do not alter the political landscape of the world to the degree that Babylon 5 did to it's world. Instead consequences are measured almost entirely in characterization. They call it the 'Golden Age of TV' and the 'age in which TV has surpassed cinema as a medium', because people really go for this kind of complex character based drama - and it has allowed unprecidented levels of acting to emerge, such as Bryan Cranston's performance as a villain.

You have to understand the context that this show is being made in. The context is that Trek is being updated for this 'Golden Age of TV' - the era of Netflix-exclusive series - the era of season-long arcs. It is probably being made as a 'modern TV drama' - in other words, the acting/character-based/dramatic consequences will probably be emphasized to a degree never before seen in Star Trek - closest to DS9. The exact type of 'character-only' consequences that you would prefer they were not doing.

AJZ554Z.jpg


But people will love it - because that is the way of modern TV - to focus upon angst and turmoil and psychology - and quite honesty, if you look at early TOS - there is a good argument that it's been a part of Trek from the get-go - the whole point of episodes like "The Cage", "Where No Man Has Gone Before" and "The Man Trap", etc. Look at how "The Man Trap" ends with Dr McCoy having to kill a replica of a former love interest, being shouted at to fire, while it sucks the life from Kirk's face - I believe that is what we will see from Fuller, and I'm game for it! It might be best to accept DSC on it's own terms, rather than want it to be Babylon 5 or Farscape or SG-1 or BSG.

I think you really have to embrace it for what it is, or you will be disappointed. Find the joy and interest in this type of storytelling. I think there will still be lots of plot, but no, there will probably not be some existential threat to the Federation that we don't already know will fail - the story will be how much suffering is inflicted before that threat is vanquished - or how an untold part of the Klingon-Federation Cold War unfolded - or how a defector and spy has their assumptions and life destroyed. We may well get a show set in the 25th century in the next few years, but I think for now, this is the approach that will be explored.
 
Last edited:
I for one, don't hate them but I find them less enjoyable than continuations. In the latter you can expect new technology, new aliens, new situations.

But none of it is actually "new", it is just stuff renamed that serves the same exact story purpose. The one thing I like about Discovery, is that it seems proud to be "Star Trek".
 
I'm sure that I read in one of the articles reporting Fuller's release of details that there would be the ability to bend space and time. I didn't bookmark it and now I'm unable to find which one it was.
 
@CJCade - He was probably speaking metaphorically - it's Hollywood speak for being able to try new things.

I know Trekkies tend to have a science oriented mind, and tend to therefore take things literally, but in the past few weeks, people have been taking Fuller's comments very literally, when a lot of them were just metaphor or Hollywood speak - i.e. "bringing hope to a new generation", is probably just a comment on the perceived cynicism of modern drama, and Trek being the antidote - not a comment about the plot.
 
I'm sure that I read in one of the articles reporting Fuller's release of details that there would be the ability to bend space and time. I didn't bookmark it and now I'm unable to find which one it was.

Yeah, I saw that as well, didn't make much of it though. As long as he isn't talking time travel, I good with it.

And it's not like any Star Trek series will never do time travel, because they all do and this one will as well. I just don't want that to be a plot point like it was in ENT, where time travel has become a major aspect of the show.
 
To be fair, early TOS had a lot of "angst" and pyschological elements to it, that formed the back bone of stories.

Balance of Terror has a great heart-to-heart with Kirk and McCoy. Amok Time is all about the three friends KSB and their relationship. The Cage has a through-line of Pike being weary of command. I actually always felt that redeveloping TOS as a new Trek series with the focus being on character and "occupational" drama would actually work really really well. A lot of TOS is full of that stuff, again, especially in the early episodes where the series was really trying to be serious.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top