How is/isn't Discovery Star Trek?
- Thread starter seigezunt
- Start date
And to think they spend per episode, adjusted for inflation, 5 times less than the amount on DSC/STD/DISCO/STuDio54 Trek than they had on TNG... that's impressive.
And in 1987, there was some suckage as well. The "Kirk vs Picard" usenet threads were a hoot...
DSC/STD/DISCO/STuDio54 Trek, as with early-TNG, relied on nostalgia and fanservice a little too much. Not in the same ways, but fanservice aplenty exists and it doesn't really fit in.
One of the things I don't understand about how DIS turned out onscreen is there are so, so many examples of the show failing the "show vs. tell" test by laying very awkward infodumps on us which are totally unneeded. At the same time, the things that really need explaining - such as providing a nuanced example of the Klingon point of view - are never really in the offering.
The only thing DIS really added was much more elaborate/varied costuming and ship design for the Klingons. Which we know was insisted upon by Bryan Fuller, ridiculously expensive considering how little time each prop was shown onscreen, and totally unneeded from a narrative perspective.
And there are so many scenes of the Klingons talking, talking, talking!
Indeed. I was quite surprised by the turn of Season 2. Defenders did alright but I don't revisit it like I do with Season 1.
As for DSC, I found enough to enjoy (Klingons, Sarek, Michael) to keep me in but set my expectations appropriately now for Season 2.
Of course there is no guarantee, and I think everyone would like series to start strong and stay strong. My point is that no series, no matter how critcally acclaimed is perfect or infallible to the same mistakes that DSC made in it's first season.
In many ways, but current TV is pretty solid.
I think a lot of people expected it to be unrealistically high-quality right out of the gate. Compared to TNG through ENT, as far as 1st seasons go, Discovery is a frigging masterpiece. It will need to continue to get better, which I believe it will.
I enjoyed it. It was fun, visually interesting, action/adventure packed, and well-acted. I'm expecting S2 to be even better.
The 2010s -- for the most part -- have turned out differently than I expected. Discovery, thankfully, is one of the things that came out the way I did expect.
I think it's a little unfair to compare DSC to two series which were both based on books. The writers of OITNB and GOT had a leg up by already having material written by someone else that they were just adapting. (Not that adapting a work of literature for the screen isn't a challenge. It's just a lot different from coming up with a story arc from scratch.)
That’s fair enough. I find that a little contradictory since television shows aren’t produced in a vacuum, but taking it as it comes is as good a way to approach it as anything else.
This suggests the shows improved as they went on - which is fine. But without the context of the following seasons, the first season seemed strong at first. DSC didn’t seem strong straight out of the gate and given everything that came before it (I.e. they can see what worked and what didn’t in Trek - it’s been around for 50 years), DSC had every opportunity to be just as seemingly strong as those other shows.
I’m fine with it having not found its feet yet. But DSC doesn’t seem to realise it has feet yet... (to me of course, ymmv)
To be fair I think I would have given up on it too. It’s the fact that it’s “Star Trek” that kept me invested. Which I think was deliberate on the part of tptb.
Agreed. I also think we should acknowledge that in this world of “solid” TV (see below) it wasn’t unreasonable to expect that DSC be less divisive and more coherent than it ultimately was even in its first season. They’ve had 50 years of “what not to do” (see any season 1 of any Trek show for what not to do) and it still missed the mark for me. But I agree that we should hope it improves in s2.
Since it’s a Star Trek spin-off then it has to be like its predecessors - because it’s a spinoff. Otherwise it’s just “dark space issues show”. I don’t think an expectation that a show that’s a continuation of a timeline from a 50 year old franchise be like its predecessors is unreasonable at all. Expecting it’s going to be totally different is unreasonable when they’ve purposely made another “Star Trek” show.
Ok - how many episodes in DSC season 1 had the emotional punch or narrative depth as DS9 season 1 “duet”? Or “in the hands of the prophets”? Or is it still unreasonable to compare things that are similar to each other? Since it’s been argued below that we shouldn’t compare DSC to other kinds of show like oitnb or GoT, what are we supposed to compare DSC with? It certainly isn’t in a class by itself. Comparing DSC to other treks is perfectly reasonable since that is the universe in which DSC sets itself. And if I was writing the show I’d be trying to avoid first season blunders and trying to emulate or draw inspiration from the best episodes of the franchise - regardless of what season they came from.
Because it’s a Star Trek show so it’s not unreasonable to expect that it’d be like other Star Trek shows. Expecting it to be totally fresh and different and retaining nothing from the other shows *is* setting yourself up for disappointment.
Ok but I rarely find myself looking for shows to watch on Netflix thinking “hey that looks ropey I might start watching it and it’ll be garbage but hopefully it’ll get better”.
Other than the fact that other Star Trek shows were uneven in s1, there’s not much in the way of explaining why DSC wasn’t more appealing across the board in s1 given that we’re in this era of generally “solid” tv.
Exactly.
Which is why it’s odd that DSC wasn’t more successful with audiences from the word go. Many modern tv shows are “solid” right off the bat. Why is DSC the exception here I wonder? (I ask that sincerely even though that might read as sarcasm).
That’s a fair point. Yet, DSC had 50 years of Star Trek to draw on. Ok it’s not a pre-written story, but the sheer wealth of data they could have used as inspiration here is staggering. The amount of books, comics, video games, television and film stories - there is so much Star Trek out there that writing DSC season 1 should have been as straightforward as adapting GoT for tv. But it’s easy for me to say that since I didn’t write any of it
Ultimately I think that arguing that DSC is fine because other Trek shows were bad in s1 is a faulty argument. Especially when people are arguing that we shouldn’t compare DSC to other iterations of Trek. That’s a contradiction. Looking at DSC in the context of modern tv means that it still had the potential to be stronger (more “solid” if you will) than it ultimately was - to me at least. Mileage varies.
Does any of this mean that DSC is “not Star Trek”? No, of course not. But, as we go into season 2, my view is: have higher expectations. *Because* it’s a Star Trek show.
DSC's Star Trek association is a blessing and a curse. All of the disruption during pre production, the ridiculous, and contradictory, expectations put on it, the scrutiny, the 'legacy', the 'vision' etc. If Discovery had been written as an entirely original piece, I'm sure it would have been a smoother ride.
Agreed. To be honest, as I’ve said before, I’m part of the problem since I want DSC to be fresh and new and totally different whilst at the same time being totally familiar and similar to everything that has come before without being derivative.
DSC didn’t have a chance
All that being said, I applaud them for trying to be fresh and different but I think their execution could have been better. In terms of making it similar to previous treks, if they’d kept the tone like the first few minutes of “Vulcan hello” for the first half of the series *then* done the Klingon war for the second half of the series I think I’d have been happier.
Maybe they should have called it “Star Trek: Double Edged Sword”
With a much smaller budget and no legacy status to get people interested.
Hence the 'blessing' part.
I want to experience Discovery as it is. So, if that means not walking in with expectations of "Star Trek" than that's what it means for me.
I really don't have a good way of explaining my approach and I know it is completely foreign to many. But, I'm not going to go it in it demanding that it meet its predecessors story or production values. Rather, I know that the Discovery story is part of the Star Trek story but it is still telling its part of the story.
So, for me, rather than going in and saying "Hey, be Star Trek" I am trying to at it with "How does this fit in to the overall Star Trek narrative?" For me, that means not putting Discovery against other shows but as its own thing first. Then as it fits in to Star Trek world as a whole.
I just can't do the comparison game any more.
Ah ok I see where you’re coming from
And there’s something to be said for taking DSC on its own merits. The problem I think they’ve created for themselves is that they’ve made it so Trek referential already that it’s impossible (or at least difficult) not to compare it at this point
And that's my larger point. It absolutely is difficult to take it on its own merits. I know BillJ has made that point numerous times, and, while I disagree to the approach, it is absolutely valid. I mean, given the era and Sarek and such yes that is difficult. But, it is not impossible.Ah ok I see where you’re coming from
And there’s something to be said for taking DSC on its own merits. The problem I think they’ve created for themselves is that they’ve made it so Trek referential already that it’s impossible (or at least difficult) not to compare it at this point
For me, I want to move past my personal expectations and just experience DSC as a story, not even as "dark space show." Just as a story. I don't want labels or comparisons. Again, it is difficult but something I want to try to do.
Similar threads
- Locked
