How is/isn't Discovery Star Trek?

[Tuskin38]

Well, I'm talking about how the showrunners chose to portray the Klingons. The ones in Discovery are closer to stereotypical sci-if B-movie monsters than ever before, even after the showrunners promised us a more nuanced take on them. The Discovery Klingons aren't much more complex than the giant ants in Them! Both are ostensibly defending their territory, and both can only be dealt with by brute force.

Then there's L'Rell's creation of Frankenstein's monster, and the odd decision to redesign the Klingons to recall Ridley Scott's Alien, a creature defined by the fact that it won't yield to reason. That all sounds pretty monstrous to me.

I don’t agree with any of that.

 

[fireproof78]

I don’t agree with any of that.

Same. To me that's a surface level analysis of the Klingons portrayals, and convinced that Klingons must come across as a mix of Martok and Gorkon, rather than a greater variety of cultural variation.

 

[Jadeb]

Same. To me that's a surface level analysis of the Klingons portrayals, and convinced that Klingons must come across as a mix of Martok and Gorkon, rather than a greater variety of cultural variation.

There's not much more to them to analyze. And I'd be quite enthused for the nuanced reimagining Discovery promised but failed to deliver. I was over the TNG versions long ago.

 

[fireproof78]

There's not much more to them to analyze. And I'd be quite enthused for the nuanced reimagining Discovery promised but failed to deliver. I was over the TNG versions long ago.

They are not as nuanced as I would have preferred, but they are certainly not monsters. Not in the way being described here.

 

[Jadeb]

They are not as nuanced as I would have preferred, but they are certainly not monsters. Not in the way being described here.

Well, they can talk -- my, how they can talk -- so that gives them a leg up on the giant ants. But they're disappointingly simplistic for a big-budget show in the era of prestige TV.

 

[fireproof78]

Well, they can talk -- my, how they can talk -- so that gives them a leg up on the giant ants. But they're disappointingly simplistic for a big-budget show in the era of prestige TV.

I was not disappointed. Also, I don't care what era of TV they are made in.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

That's why I don't compare it to other shows, especially not a first season compared season 5. Both unreasonable and unrealistic

Fair enough. But is it not unrealistic to treat DSC like the other shows in giving it time to develop from season 1? The only reason we’re making that argument is because we’re used to Star Trek being wobbly at first and developing over the years. But television doesn’t work like that anymore. There’s no reason to give DSC a pass in s1 because all Trek first series’ were bad. It was funded by Netflix - it should have been amazing right out of the gate. Look at OITNB or GoT where the first season was fantastic. By saying that we shouldn’t compare a s1 episode to a s5 one *is* comparing DSC to the other shows because the other shows were made in a time where letting the thing develop slowly over multiple series was a thing. I expect shows to be awesome from the word go in this day and age and (as has been stated elsewhere) since DSC is “a show for the 2010s” I think that is the key criterion. We should forget the old days of TNG and expect more from DSC now - not by season 7. If we don’t expect more from it right now, we might not get a season 7.

 

[fireproof78]

I expect shows to be awesome from the word go in this day and age and (as has been stated elsewhere) since DSC is “a show for the 2010s” I think that is the key criterion.

That's a fair distinction but it is one that I do not share. I do not want to treat DSC differently just because of the era of TV it was produced in. I will take it as it comes and work my hardest to not compare it to other shows.

 

[cultcross]

But television doesn’t work like that anymore.

I've made this argument myself, but then I rewatched Orange is the New Black and Orphan Black and found in both cases the first season I'd enjoyed so much the first time round seemed wobbly as a Tardigrade on copyrighted ice from the perspective of having seen the rest. First seasons outside Trek, especially original writing rather than adaptation, are still finding their feet too, characters a bit whacky and tone and theme not quite settled. It isn't an excuse for a bad first season, but it is an excuse not to have quite found your feet yet.

 

[Jadeb]

Fair enough. But is it not unrealistic to treat DSC like the other shows in giving it time to develop from season 1? The only reason we’re making that argument is because we’re used to Star Trek being wobbly at first and developing over the years. But television doesn’t work like that anymore. There’s no reason to give DSC a pass in s1 because all Trek first series’ were bad. It was funded by Netflix - it should have been amazing right out of the gate.

That we continue to watch and discuss it *is* giving it a pass, I'd argue. Had it not been a Trek show, I'd have dropped it before we got to the MU. I'm willing to give them more than a reasonable chance to find their feet, but, in the meantime, I don't see why we shouldn't acknowledge season one's flaws and hope the show improves. That's just being a discerning consumer.

 

[fireproof78]

There is acknowledging flaws and then demanding the show be like its predecessors. One is reasonable, and varies from viewer to viewer. The other is unreasonable and sets up for disappointment for the viewer.

 

[Rahul]

...demanding the show be like its predecessors...

Literally no one does this here or anywhere else....

 

[BillJ]

There is acknowledging flaws and then demanding the show be like its predecessors. One is reasonable, and varies from viewer to viewer. The other is unreasonable and sets up for disappointment for the viewer.

The whole reason it is "Star Trek" is to trade on our affection of what came before. So, yes, it is completely fair to expect it to be similar to its predecessors.

 

[fireproof78]

The whole reason it is "Star Trek" is to trade on our affection of what came before. So, yes, it is completely fair to expect it to be similar to its predecessors.

Then, on that point, it fails for me. I refuse to do such.

And, I certainly don't expect a Season 1 episode to carry the same punch as a season 5 episode from another series. Again, unreasonable.

 

[BillJ]

Then, on that point, it fails for me. I refuse to do such.

I think it relied a little too much on what came before. It really doesn't feel like it established its own voice to me. We'll see what season two brings...

 

[fireproof78]

I think it relied a little too much on what came before. It really doesn't feel like it established its own voice to me. We'll see what season two brings...

I don't know if I was clear. I have affection for Discovery as Discovery not because Star Trek or what has come before.

Mileage will likely vary and all that.

Literally no one does this here or anywhere else....

Which is why I am seeing comparisons to "The Siege of AR-556" and stating that that episode did it better?

Yes, I am seeing people demanding DSC be like its predecessors. Not as much here, but elsewhere where Trek is discussed. ​

 

[Pauln6]

I really enjoyed season 1, although the ending felt like a bizarre damp squib. I suppose I would have been more forgiving of the stylistic changes if, say, Stamets had been combining little-understood alien tech with his own research.

Maybe he studied with another maverick medical exo-archaeologist, Roger Korby. ;-p

 

[Apparition B5]

It's Star Trek, it's just Star Trek produced for the 2010s instead of the 1960s, 80s, 90s or 00s.

I agree. Sadly, the 2010s suck.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Owned by CBS. Written by people who work for CBS. Has "Star Trek" in the title. Works as Star Trek for me.
Plus this:

By the time the season wrapped up I was left feeling completely content that DSC *is* Star Trek, at least what I've come to think of in terms of elements that all the various shows and movies have in common. It's not going to be TOS or TNG or VOY, but I think it continues much in the same spirit: a sci-fi-based adventure set in a certain universe, with some messaging and humor.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

Fair enough. But is it not unrealistic to treat DSC like the other shows in giving it time to develop from season 1? The only reason we’re making that argument is because we’re used to Star Trek being wobbly at first and developing over the years. But television doesn’t work like that anymore. There’s no reason to give DSC a pass in s1 because all Trek first series’ were bad. It was funded by Netflix - it should have been amazing right out of the gate. Look at OITNB or GoT where the first season was fantastic. By saying that we shouldn’t compare a s1 episode to a s5 one *is* comparing DSC to the other shows because the other shows were made in a time where letting the thing develop slowly over multiple series was a thing. I expect shows to be awesome from the word go in this day and age and (as has been stated elsewhere) since DSC is “a show for the 2010s” I think that is the key criterion. We should forget the old days of TNG and expect more from DSC now - not by season 7. If we don’t expect more from it right now, we might not get a season 7.

In fairness, having a great first season means jack shit in the long run. GOT did have an amazing first season but the quality in the writing has been diminishing each season, and it was particularly noticeable in season 7 because they'd run out of G.R.R Martin material to borrow from. Daredevil had an amazing first season, but each season there after has been pretty lackluster. I would rather a show have a shaky start, but progressively get better. I think the notion that series need to be 'awesome' from the start is unrealistic and ultimately setting yourself up for disappointment.