Poll How positive are you about Discovery now?

[PixelMagic]

Sort of true, but I took @PixelMagic's comment to mean that Beyond was good enough to generate excitement about a fourth film.

Yes, exactly. If Beyond had been the same as Into Darkness, I'd have no interest in a 4th film. I'm definitely going to watch Discovery, and even if I don't like it, I'm going to continue a subscription to CBS All Access to support it. Trek is on the fence of becoming a dead franchise again, and I don't want that to happen. I don't mind supporting Trek I don't like if it means I might get a Trek I do like in the future. I hate DS9, but I'm glad there are people who enjoy it. And hey, maybe Discovery will be awesome.

 

[pst]

i'm late to this, please forgive me if this is expressed in the preceding 17 pages.

i'm disappointed discovery is set in the prime universe rather than the kelvin timeline. this seems like corporate politics rather than something good for the franchise. studios are so hungry to be marvel these days, they're forcing bizarre shared universes (universal's dark universe, sony's gestating non-MCU-spidey-verse). star trek is fertile ground for a movie / television universe building off the 2009 reboot and it's a mistake not to capitalize on that, especially given most trek fans' love of continuity.

this is to say nothing of boxing discovery into very well trodden design terrain. and, most importantly, boxing discovery into clearly established story continuity. setting discovery in this timeframe and this timeline seems like hamstringing right out of the gate.

i'm still getting CBS all access. i'll still be having friends over to watch the premiere. i'll still have an eaglemoss shenzou on my desk. but with this as a foundation, it's difficult for me to look at discovery as anything but fundamentally flawed.

 

[KirkusOveractus]

i'm late to this, please forgive me if this is expressed in the preceding 17 pages.

i'm disappointed discovery is set in the prime universe rather than the kelvin timeline. this seems like corporate politics rather than something good for the franchise. studios are so hungry to be marvel these days, they're forcing bizarre shared universes (universal's dark universe, sony's gestating non-MCU-spidey-verse). star trek is fertile ground for a movie / television universe building off the 2009 reboot and it's a mistake not to capitalize on that, especially given most trek fans' love of continuity.

this is to say nothing of boxing discovery into very well trodden design terrain. and, most importantly, boxing discovery into clearly established story continuity. setting discovery in this timeframe and this timeline seems like hamstringing right out of the gate.

i'm still getting CBS all access. i'll still be having friends over to watch the premiere. i'll still have an eaglemoss shenzou on my desk. but with this as a foundation, it's difficult for me to look at discovery as anything but fundamentally flawed.

I'm a huge fan of both timelines, but I think it's more than corporate politics. It seems to be more of a "favored nations" agreement, where Paramount now has the Kelvin universe to do movies from and CBS has the Prime universe to market and base series off.

Also, I think there is still a bit of being gun shy with Trek. They had that kind of capitalizing on a universe and timeline, and running multiple series at once on TV fatigued and nearly killed any new Star Trek.

 

[Ometiklan]

...this is to say nothing of boxing discovery into very well trodden design terrain. and, most importantly, boxing discovery into clearly established story continuity. setting discovery in this timeframe and this timeline seems like hamstringing right out of the gate...

If anything has been demonstrated so far it's that Discovery's producers are not being boxed in by existing design, even if the most vocal, negative fans might want it that way.

As for story continuity, I think it goes both ways: the Kelvin Timeline, most notably with Into Darkness, despite starting with the premise that they would diverge from the Prime timeline and be able to do anything they wanted, called back to previous Trek history too often and too much. The other direction is what Discovery is taking: set the show in the Prime universe and write around and between known events. If the producers and writers have said anything in the last few days it's that they are finding ways to write new stories in the known history, pushing boundaries where possible and not pushing when it isn't - expanding on what is known in cooperation with canon.

The Prime Star Trek timeline has as much room to explore as the Kelvin Timeline, especially in the pre-TOS setting. TOS, being the first, and at the time thought to be the only, show, wasn't concerned with setting up a complete history of the Federation, with laying out a cohesive backtory and culture. Other than specific incidents in the individual characters' histories, and that fact that the Romulan and Klingon Empires exist into TOS, there is very little constraining history to worry about. It's a big galaxy: set on a new ship, with new crews, exploring new conflicts, and new aliens - as long as they don't destroy Vulcan, give the Romulans too advanced cloaking devices, or make the Klingon's staunch Federation allies - Discovery has as much room to play as they could want.

 

[pst]

The other direction is what Discovery is taking: set the show in the Prime universe and write around and between known events. If the producers and writers have said anything in the last few days it's that they are finding ways to write new stories in the known history, pushing boundaries where possible and not pushing when it isn't - expanding on what is known in cooperation with canon.

it just seems like if they'd used the rebooted timeline, the producers wouldn't have to write around and between quite so many known events and they could push boundaries into new territory rather than running up against the old. they wouldn't have to do mental jujitsu to rationalize deviations they've made or defend themselves against "vocal, negative fans".

for those vocal and negative fans who don't like the design and story choices they've made, or for those of us who are just a little baffled by those choices, there's a built-in explanation with the kelvin timeline (even if not everybody is satisfied by "nero did it"). but it definitely feels like the producers are saying it's the prime universe because they think it's what fans want to hear, while simultaneously divorcing themselves from the prime universe and the kelvin timeline and nixing their opportunity for a true expanded, cohesive universe.

this is all surface level stuff though. i hope the stories are good, i hope the show's good. i hope it gets people excited about star trek in a way the 2009 reboot did and paramount undid.

 

[Ometiklan]

...and running multiple series at once on TV fatigued and nearly killed any new Star Trek.

I still say that "franchise fatigue" is a false argument. Outside of DS9 getting some middle-child effect from lack of corporate support and interest, I think the viewership problem for Star Trek was really just a quality issue.

<rant to follow>
I know there are people who started with Voyager or Enterprise who say that those are their favorites or the ones they think are best, but I think the vast majority of fans, critics, and general viewers would agree that VOY and ENT are not the franchise's best shows. Issues include:

1) Voyager tried to replicate TNG's adventure of the week for syndication and out-of-order rewatchability mostly - avoiding having to consider the consequences of past events which DS9 included regularly. In this way Trek wasn't keeping up with developments in television overall, and I think it frustrated regular viewers. Trek didn't really fix this until ENT season 3 (which was mostly serialized plot continuity) and even then could have used more character growth and continuity.

2) Both Voyager and Enterprise failed to really follow through on their premises due to corporate interference and some producer/writer laziness. Voyager dropped the inherent conflict with the Maquis crewmembers starting with episode 2 - except for two episodes: Learning Curve and Worst Case Scenario. Little effort was made to really engage with the "lost and desperate far from home" elements except for lip service paid to having to occasionally find more food supplies. Issues with unending power supplies, torpedoes, shuttle craft, and always running into the same crappy bad guys (the Kazon, for two whole seasons despite going "full speed" for home) demonstrate lack of follow-through. Enterprise hardly seemed to be showing the true early pioneering days of space travel since they picked up phasers, transporters, hull plating (i.e. shields) and all the other tropes in short order. They also had corporate interference with the shoehorned Temporal Cold War which went nowhere, immediately putting the ship into space in the pilot instead of exploring the organization and forming of the first starship and crew, and that "finale".

3) Voyager also had clear and apparent issues with lack of care or interest in some of their characters by both writers and actors. We never learned much about or saw much evolution for Chakotay and Kim, the writer's apparently had no real future plans for B'Lana as late as "Barge of the Dead" (according to Ron Moore). Enterprise did somewhat better with trying to develop all their main characters (at least at the start and given they only had 4 seasons), but I don't think many people count Reed, Mayweather, or Hoshi among their favorites, or would list them as well-developed or even noteworthy. If the character wasn't currently compelling, the writers should have thrown a curve ball or something at least trying to engage with the character!

TLDR
Ultimately I would say that being too conservative was the problem for the fall of Star Trek. And despite all the good that Berman did to hold the franchise together and keep true to its spirit, the restrictions he and others placed on it, and the lack of new blood at the top after 17 years of continuous production really hurt. Not investing in the shows and their characters, not taking enough risks, and not evolving the show with the times - as weird as that seems for a forward looking franchise like Star Trek - was what led to the downfall.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

it just seems like if they'd used the rebooted timeline, the producers wouldn't have to write around and between quite so many known events and they could push boundaries into new territory rather than running up against the old.

Just like Star Trek Into Darkness did?

 

[pst]

Just like Star Trek Into Darkness did?

into darkness slavishly remixed wrath of khan, it wasn't constrained by trying to line itself up with wrath of khan to avoid contradicting it.

Not investing in the shows and their characters, not taking enough risks, and not evolving the show with the times - as weird as that seems for a forward looking franchise like Star Trek - was what led to the downfall.

everything you just said was 100% on point.

 

[Ometiklan]

it just seems like if they'd used the rebooted timeline, the producers wouldn't have to write around and between quite so many known events and they could push boundaries into new territory rather than running up against the old. they wouldn't have to do mental jujitsu to rationalize deviations they've made or defend themselves against "vocal, negative fans".

for those vocal and negative fans who don't like the design and story choices they've made, or for those of us who are just a little baffled by those choices, there's a built-in explanation with the kelvin timeline (even if not everybody is satisfied by "nero did it")...

I think using the Kelvin Timeline can be as troublesome or more than writing around the Prime history.

First of all, Trek has always had to deal with writing within (or ignoring to some degree) canon. That is true for any series with multiple parts - even "Empire Strikes Back" had to deal with Vader as Luke's dad and Leia as Luke's sister when those clearly weren't true in "Star Wars" - but that doesn't mean you should just ignore all elements of part 1 and start anew in part 2. Dealing with it and writing within that universe and history gives more weight and meaning to all the characters and events - they matter more with a continuous history (and future). Discarding that history upon a new installment lessens this.

Secondly, I think you can have just as many issues, and might have to offer up more potential explanations, for something like the Kelvin Timeline. Why does the USS Kelvin not look more like the Enterprise circa "The Cage", why is Khan so totally different, why are the Klingon's different? Given the premise of Star Trek (2009) all those elements are pre-Nero and should be unchanged from TOS. Then with all the changes how does the same crew get together on the same ship? How do they still run into Harry Mudd with all the timeline changes?

Thirdly, Discovery can have as much "new territory" as the Kelvin timeline. Star Trek Beyond could have taken place in the Prime Universe; nothing there (minus the character backstory changes and design changes) interferes with Prime history. It could easily have been in season 4 of TOS. Discovery has a whole universe to work in; barring "world-changing" events like the destruction of a known planet, practically anything Discovery does can fit into existing canon with no explanation required.

I guess both the Kelvin timeline and Discovery are trying to have their cake and eat it too. Kelvin changed the design of the ship and the history of the crew while picking and choosing elements of canon to keep similar or change (with little rationality). Discovery is apparently choosing to keep the universe's history the same, but updating the design aesthetic, and writing around the few known events. Whether you think one works better than the other is down to personal opinion, but I will take Discovery's apparent thematic/character/history continuity, over Kelvin's keeping the odd random element the same but different while being free to destroy Vulcan if it serves the theme and story.

 

[pst]

Secondly, I think you can have just as many issues, and might have to offer up more potential explanations, for something like the Kelvin Timeline. Why does the USS Kelvin not look more like the Enterprise circa "The Cage", why is Khan so totally different, why are the Klingon's different? Given the premise of Star Trek (2009) all those elements are pre-Nero and should be unchanged from TOS. Then with all the changes how does the same crew get together on the same ship? How do they still run into Harry Mudd with all the timeline changes?

sorry, maybe i should have clarified, i'm operating under the assumption that the kelvin timeline is as simon pegg described it last year:

"The rift in space/time created an entirely new reality in all directions, top to bottom, from the Big Bang to the end of everything. As such this reality was, is and always will be subtly different from the Prime Universe."

essentially carte blanche.

 

[F. King Daniel]

sorry, maybe i should have clarified, i'm operating under the assumption that the kelvin timeline is as simon pegg described it last year:

"The rift in space/time created an entirely new reality in all directions, top to bottom, from the Big Bang to the end of everything. As such this reality was, is and always will be subtly different from the Prime Universe."

essentially carte blanche.

And how the new Encyclopedia describes it, with differences rippling before and after the triggering event:

 

[Ometiklan]

sorry, maybe i should have clarified, i'm operating under the assumption that the kelvin timeline is as simon pegg described it last year:

"The rift in space/time created an entirely new reality in all directions, top to bottom, from the Big Bang to the end of everything. As such this reality was, is and always will be subtly different from the Prime Universe."

essentially carte blanche.

And how the new Encyclopedia describes it, with differences rippling before and after the triggering event:

Oh, I am aware of Pegg's "retconning". If they wanted carte blanche, they shouldn't have had a time travel device specifically to tie it to the Prime universe just to then say "oops, actually ignore that, we are not connected at all". I put it down to laziness on Orci/Kurtzman's part and lack of 'guramba' by JJ and Paramount/CBS to really start a fresh timeline.

I guess with Pegg's retcon they do have total carte blanche, but it really truly is after the fact. And I still don't really get it. If you want top to bottom freedom/changes, why are your characters so similar yet a little different? If the changes go back to the big bang, humans likely never evolved let alone the one named Kirk. I think it really comes down to that JJ didn't want to play with Star Trek, he wanted Star Wars, but he couldn't get it at the time and this was the next best thing. So then he wanted to be able to do anything he wanted, but CBS/Paramount wouldn't let him go whole hog, he had to have the iconic TOS crew to pull in an audience. To me it feels like a bunch of half-measures.

Even though I loved Beyond and would like to see the Kelvin Universe continue with that quality (with a better villain or maybe no real villain), the Prime Universe is the real universe for me, and it is a better home to play in than the Kelvin Universe.

 

[Noname Given]

I still say that "franchise fatigue" is a false argument. Outside of DS9 getting some middle-child effect from lack of corporate support and interest, I think the viewership problem for Star Trek was really just a quality issue.

^^^
Um, were that the case TNG would NEVER have gotten a second season.

 

[pst]

Oh, I am aware of Pegg's "retconning". If they wanted carte blanche, they shouldn't have had a time travel device specifically to tie it to the Prime universe just to then say "oops, actually ignore that, we are not connected at all". I put it down to laziness on Orci/Kurtzman's part and lack of 'guramba' by JJ and Paramount/CBS to really start a fresh timeline.

i think you're half right - it had less to do with laziness and more to do with fear of a total reboot. but it's often cited as a clever and appealing way to reboot a franchise.

yeah pegg's approach to the kelvin timeline is a changed premise, but a forgivable one. you cited above luke and leia's relationship in both star wars and empire strikes back, changed for return of the jedi. your point was that things change in the telling of the story and i agree. in the case of star wars, it creates a bit of a disconnect, in the case of the kelvin timeline it serves to explain discrepancies which many "vocal, negative fans" decried for years.

I think it really comes down to that JJ didn't want to play with Star Trek, he wanted Star Wars, but he couldn't get it at the time and this was the next best thing. So then he wanted to be able to do anything he wanted, but CBS/Paramount wouldn't let him go whole hog, he had to have the iconic TOS crew to pull in an audience. To me it feels like a bunch of half-measures.

i don't pretend to know all the politics went into the reboots or the politics at CBS now. to me, shoehorning a story into a 50 year old continuity, rebooting it visually and calling it the prime universe is what feels like a half-measure.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Oh, I am aware of Pegg's "retconning". If they wanted carte blanche, they shouldn't have had a time travel device specifically to tie it to the Prime universe just to then say "oops, actually ignore that, we are not connected at all". I put it down to laziness on Orci/Kurtzman's part and lack of 'guramba' by JJ and Paramount/CBS to really start a fresh timeline.

I guess with Pegg's retcon they do have total carte blanche, but it really truly is after the fact. And I still don't really get it. If you want top to bottom freedom/changes, why are your characters so similar yet a little different? If the changes go back to the big bang, humans likely never evolved let alone the one named Kirk. I think it really comes down to that JJ didn't want to play with Star Trek, he wanted Star Wars, but he couldn't get it at the time and this was the next best thing. So then he wanted to be able to do anything he wanted, but CBS/Paramount wouldn't let him go whole hog, he had to have the iconic TOS crew to pull in an audience. To me it feels like a bunch of half-measures.

Even though I loved Beyond and would like to see the Kelvin Universe continue with that quality (with a better villain or maybe no real villain), the Prime Universe is the real universe for me, and it is a better home to play in than the Kelvin Universe.

The reason they changed from "everything was the same up until Nero appeared" to "everything might be slightly different" was likely due to Discovery. Two different production teams furthering the same era in Trek are bound to come up with loads of contradictions and this sidesteps it.

Now the Kelvin movie guys don't have to worry about what the Discovery people are doing and vice-versa. It's like the DC movie universe and their TV shows. Same subject matter, different interpretations.

 

[BillJ]

Two different production teams furthering the same era in Trek are bound to come up with loads of contradictions and this sidesteps it.

Not sure it is really an issue now.

 

[Go-Captain]

To date I have been intrigued by Discovery, but the recent trailer left me with a flat feeling. It is cool looking, it seems to imply an interesting situation, there are parts I like, such as the aesthetic and designs, but something isn't ringing right. There is some indescribable feeling which, as boring as it was, even (season 1 & 2) Enterprise could summon. I'm left with the same impression of wait and see, but this is the first time I have an inkling I may not like the results, but I will definitely watch that first episode.

 

[queerTrekker]

I would have to say that I am somewhat positive about it and curious to see where this goes, especailly with its all-inclusive promise and the fact that it is being produced for a digital platform with less of hte hang ups that none-traditional channels implement, especailly comming from CBS as the rights holder, who is one of the more old fashioned channels.

 

[Mudd]

I still say that "franchise fatigue" is a false argument. Outside of DS9 getting some middle-child effect from lack of corporate support and interest, I think the viewership problem for Star Trek was really just a quality issue.

No.

• People were tired of it;
• People were bored by it;
• People moved on.

 

[Ometiklan]

^^^
Um, were that the case TNG would NEVER have gotten a second season.

Well, I guess I am glad that we were all a little more forgiving in 1987.

i don't pretend to know all the politics went into the reboots or the politics at CBS now. to me, shoehorning a story into a 50 year old continuity, rebooting it visually and calling it the prime universe is what feels like a half-measure.

Yeah, I can't claim to know anything about JJ's actual thoughts, this is just my impression.
As for Discovery, I don't know that we can fairly judge whether or not it is a half measure until we actually see an episode or two.

The reason they changed from "everything was the same up until Nero appeared" to "everything might be slightly different" was likely due to Discovery.

Beyond was well in the can (if not all editing was done) by the time Discovery was announced let alone developed, so I doubt Discovery had any impact on the retcon.

• People were tired of it;
• People were bored by it;
• People moved on.

Looking at raw Nielson numbers ignores a lot of what else was going on in television.

• When TNG started, there wasn't as much sci-fi on television
• TNG captured wide viewership in syndication, whereas Voyager was the flagship for the fledgling UPN
• As Trek progressed, the cable landscape expanded, and viewership fractured for all networks/shows/genres
• "People moved on" yeah, because the quality wasn't there

If you want to rely on ratings, you have to compare their numbers to what would get them renewed - which everything till ENT did well enough on. But clearly ratings aren't the be all and end all.