Discussion in 'Star Trek: Discovery' started by Raul, Dec 2, 2017.
CBS should not be happy because of Netflix footing the bill, obviously
Another point to consider is the possibility that many Netflix subscribers worldwide are young and barely know about Trek except for the movies. This gives a lot of opportunity for the franchise owners to access this large market, but they might also have to do so in the same way they produced and marketed the movies. That means make them look like Hollywood blockbusters, and make any modifications (even in the timeline) that they think might be more appealing to new audiences.
Since Star Trek views time travel as a Big Giant Reset Button/Get Out of Jail Free Card, thereby removing all consequence from the story they wasted lots of time telling, yes. Zero is fine.
Lots of possibilities, of course, including rebooting the whole franchise.
Removing time travel would remove half of the good stories of Star Trek. Half of the good original movies are gone, half of the good JJ movies are gone, half of the good episodes are gone. Even the Temporal Cold War, as annoying as the concept was, brought the only episodes in the first Enterprise season that weren't a complete bore, and ended up exposing the Vulcans struggling with their own arrogance throughout the rest of the series better than it would have otherwise.
I'd rather have more time travel stories, as it seems those happen to end up being exciting where everything else fails to be. Given one of the reasonable complaints about Discovery is that it hardly does any good exploration (of worlds, human nature, philosophical questions or anything), and is too focused on the war effort, it was the time travel episode that did more exploring than the entire spore drive thing. It was the only episode so far that brought out concepts that were novel to me, like excusing one's monstrous thrill killing behind a curtain ‘it didn't happen, lalala’. And the only episode where I was actually wondering if the crew would overcome the obstacle they were presented with, and I truly enjoyed watching them solve their predicament, in particular Stamets painfully learning how to convince his crewbuddies fast enough.
A reset button may be a (bad*) choice, but you don't have to add one to every time travel story. It's also a gateway to other worlds, and stories not otherwise possible.
If I was revisiting Star Trek, I would probably watch the time travel and whale ones, and skip all that remaining filler.
* Except when it's good, like Yesterday's Enterprise. Or Twilight (technobabble excepted). Or the DIscovery episode with the long pompous title.
Rather than half, it's probably more like: about 1 time travel episode per season, per show, and per film series. And 90% of those aren't technically time travel episodes, but "temporal anomaly" episodes.
Good distinction...because when I think about it, I generally like time travel episodes but really dislike the temporal anomoly episodes.
Except for when Dr. Crane shows up.
So I think this show has potential for 5 seasons at least. Lesser number of episodes, good reception, CBSAA factors all playing into keeping the show running for longer. Also, making it a show that is more contemporary and gritty means that at least some of the feedback is going to go into making the downstream seasons better. There is going to be a limit however, and as others have pointed out fatigue sets in around 6-7. And that's fine. It would lead CBS to develop the next Star Trek (fact) series.
The first few pages of this thread were...entertaining. I'm sure my current sig wouldn't have helped the majority case.
I am sure that we will see at least one more Discovery episode on time travel.
Mudd was playing around with time, but we will see the crew of the Discovery travel to another era one day, I would bet on it.
The practical answer to this is always: one too many.
I hope it's at least 5. Give the series a lot of time to get good.
Maybe more seasons than 5,if each season has its own theme, and writers are added and older ones dropped?
How many Seasons ? As many as CBS wants ;-) It's all on them if they want to pour time & money into it to keep it going.
Also depends on ratings, but I'm not sure how they do ratings on shows that can be binged watched during breaks ( like the current break in Disco 'till Jan 7th rolls around )
Discovery as it was made was never an anthology. The original pitch was to run an anthology series, that was quickly rejected. Discovery was another way that Fuller went, unrelated to that pitch.
In general, I'm the opposite. I love me a 'Time Squared', 'Cause and Effect', 'Yesterday's Enterprise' or 'All Good Things' much more than a costume drama like 'Times Arrow' or 'Future's End'. ST:FC is an obvious exception but I think that was helped by the fact that the time they visited was also in our future.
Exactly this - shows very rarely bow out in their prime, they need another 1-2 seasons for the suits to realise that prime has passed. It's like the question 'how high will they get promoted' - the answer is 'one rank above where they should be'.
What would be great is if we experienced some type of leap backwards in time where STD was never even created (zero seasons).
Would you replace it, or be content without a series?
Separate names with a comma.