Poll If they admitted it wasn't PRIME?

[Noname Given]

Sarek, Mudd, the Klingons, Mirror Universe, Tribbles, Gorn skeleton, Horta. Constant name drops to things that existed in other versions of Star Trek.

I'm not seeing a whole lot of originality.

IMO - reusing existing characters (IMO) isn't the same as just reliving 'past hits' . ST: D certainly isn't a rehash of certain TOS episodes.

And if you think re-using existing characters sucks, I guess you disliked:

STII: TWoK
STIII:TSFS
TNG Unification
etc.

Again, I understand many people don't care for ST: D or the way it's telling and executing its story, but it's hardly either unoriginal, or just retelling previous 'great' TOS episodes or storylines. Yes, it also has recast new actors for the TOS characters it has included, but that's because the principal actors for these characters have passed, and even if they had not - would have been too old to directly reprise these roles.

 

[SpocksOddSocks]

Well, he WAS leader of Autobots as Sentinel Prime

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

That's what made me think of it actually. I was tempted to look up the credits to this to reply the snapshot of the ST09 credits screenshot.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

I get stuff shipped from Vulcan for free with Prime.

 

[ITDUDE]

I get stuff shipped from Vulcan for free with Prime.

That's nothing... Unless it's Kelvin Vulcan shipping to Prime Vulcan.. That would be impressive...

 

[fireproof78]

Dang, you might have struck gold there!
You might have accidentally unleashed the perfect analogy about how different people feel about prequels!
I, for example, can't watch a taped version of a football game once I know the outcome. It's just boring to me. I need the excitement of not knowing the final result to be able to feel the thrill of the moment of each attack/defense. Once I've been spoiled, there really is no reason for me to watch the entire thing, not even to analyze the performance of particular players.

Guess what? I'm also not a big fan of prequels, all things considered. But I know plenty of people completely different than me in this regard.

See, I am the exact opposite, and most of my family is. They don't mind knowing the scores, and don't actively go about avoiding them. My dad will revisit old games and films that he likes, regardless of spoilers. I tend to be the same way, as I prefer to see how something happens, rather than just the facts. Likely comes from my tennis playing days

Prequels are a whole different animal than most sequels, though the Star Wars sequels are falling in to that territory too. More on that in a moment. Sequels just continue the adventure, and more successful sequels will do something than the original film material-see Aliens, Empire Strikes Back and Terminator 2, among other examples.

Prequels play with individuals expectations and emotional investment. The characters might not fit with what we imagined them to be like, or how events unfolded. For example, I had imagined how the Vader and Obi-Wan fight and how Vader had gotten burned long before seeing ROTS. It certainly wasn't how I imagined it when it was put to film.

Likewise, the TOS era had already had some imaginings, with FASA, novels and individuals imagining it, setting up expectations for what came before. And, unfortunately, those expectations cannot be met. It's just not possible.

So, when individuals say "It doesn't feel like Trek" I'm starting to get that, because it doesn't meet those imaginings that went on for a while. It can't fill the gap of nearly 50 years of ancillary material, technological developments and societal changes. It's a challenge, that ultimately will vary from individual to individual, based upon expectations.

For me, characters will always matter more than story, more than continuity and more than art design. Regardless of personal imaginings, I love seeing variations on a universe, and DSC does that well, both with characters, setting and design work.

But, prequels are not for everyone and I do understand that.

 

[Jayson1]

I am curious about people who don't like prequels. Does that mean you also don't like reruns? Anytime you watch any old Trek series or any show you like but have already seen you go in knowing how the episode will end. No matter how many times I watch "Wrath of Khan" it always ends with Spock dying and KIrk insulting him by calling him a human.


Jason

 

[F. King Daniel]

No matter how many times I watch "Wrath of Khan" it always ends with Spock dying and KIrk insulting him by calling him a human.

I saw it a few years ago, but this time Kirk died, which drove Spock totally bonkers and he had a huge fist fight with Khan. It was amazing.

 

[Jayson1]

I saw it a few years ago, but this time Kirk died, which drove Spock totally bonkers and he had a huge fist fight with Khan. It was amazing.

That's interesting. I also saw one were Kirk and Spock wasn't even in it but Picard and his clone for some reason.

Jason

 

[SPCTRE]

But what if they admitted it's their own unique spin on pre-TOS Trek

 

[Rahul]

See, I am the exact opposite, and most of my family is. They don't mind knowing the scores, and don't actively go about avoiding them. My dad will revisit old games and films that he likes, regardless of spoilers. I tend to be the same way, as I prefer to see how something happens, rather than just the facts. Likely comes from my tennis playing days

Prequels are a whole different animal than most sequels, though the Star Wars sequels are falling in to that territory too. More on that in a moment. Sequels just continue the adventure, and more successful sequels will do something than the original film material-see Aliens, Empire Strikes Back and Terminator 2, among other examples.

Prequels play with individuals expectations and emotional investment. The characters might not fit with what we imagined them to be like, or how events unfolded. For example, I had imagined how the Vader and Obi-Wan fight and how Vader had gotten burned long before seeing ROTS. It certainly wasn't how I imagined it when it was put to film.

Likewise, the TOS era had already had some imaginings, with FASA, novels and individuals imagining it, setting up expectations for what came before. And, unfortunately, those expectations cannot be met. It's just not possible.

So, when individuals say "It doesn't feel like Trek" I'm starting to get that, because it doesn't meet those imaginings that went on for a while. It can't fill the gap of nearly 50 years of ancillary material, technological developments and societal changes. It's a challenge, that ultimately will vary from individual to individual, based upon expectations.

For me, characters will always matter more than story, more than continuity and more than art design. Regardless of personal imaginings, I love seeing variations on a universe, and DSC does that well, both with characters, setting and design work.

But, prequels are not for everyone and I do understand that.

I am curious about people who don't like prequels. Does that mean you also don't like reruns? Anytime you watch any old Trek series or any show you like but have already seen you go in knowing how the episode will end. No matter how many times I watch "Wrath of Khan" it always ends with Spock dying and KIrk insulting him by calling him a human.


Jason

See, I like re-runs. Because they remind me of the first time I watched them. And remember the thrill I had, watching something this great and not knowing how it ends. A feeling prequels rarely can achieve, ond only some did ("Temple of Doom", "Godfather II" - but all those had additional elements where the outcome wasn't pre-determined).

I don't think people that say "DIS doesn't feel like Trek" compare it to FASA novels or other obscure tie-ins at all. I think they compare it how they felt watching previous Trek the first time. And indeed - DIS has done some questionable things here. The klingon re-design above anything else, but also how certain characters act, how the war is depicted or some other nitpicks. (I think it certainly feels very much like Star Trek, but I can understand everyone who doesn't, as the show - while overall pretty enjoyable - has some serious shortcomings as of episode 5)

 

[Jayson1]

Actually when you think about it this thread is basically a trap. If you read it and post in it then it means you do care about it because if you didn't care about it, the issue wouldn't be worth reading or talking about. On the other hand if you don't read or talk about it that means you also care about it because you not caring is actually you caring about not caring about it since you didn't bother to speak your mind about how you don't care about it. The only way to not care is to not know anything about what a prime universe is but then to not know is to not know anything about Star Trek which means you showed how much you care about not caring about Star Trek by not learning about it thus meaning were all trapped in a endless never-ending loop of caring about everything until we die!

Jason

 

[fireproof78]

See, I like re-runs. Because they remind me of the first time I watched them. And remember the thrill I had, watching something this great and not knowing how it ends. A feeling prequels rarely can achieve, ond only some did ("Temple of Doom", "Godfather II" - but all those had additional elements where the outcome wasn't pre-determined).

I don't think people that say "DIS doesn't feel like Trek" compare it to FASA novels or other obscure tie-ins at all. I think they compare it how they felt watching previous Trek the first time. )

No, I don't think so either, though I have encountered those who feel that canon has been established and DSC has ignored it. More to my point is that there are sources of information that could set up expectations that would go unfulfilled with a new show, whether books, personal imaginings, etc.

I do agree with your larger point that DSC has a different feel from the first time of other Star Trek shows.

 

[Rahul]

I DO think DIS feels like Star Trek. Just not very exciting Star Trek. In fact, I feel a little as if someone took DS9, VOY and ENT into a mixer, and out came DIS. Having both the best and the worst characteristics of each series.

It has the continous war-arc and character development from DS9, the female point-of-view character and mentor-relationship from VOY, and the prequel setting and, like, most of the production style from ENT. But it also has the rather lackluster plot-of-the-weeks, unnecessary re-designs (klingons!), lots and lots of canon discrepancies, and a very generic main conflict (who of us really care for the klingon war?).

All in all, while it feels very familiar Trek, the biggest difference in feeling I have currently is that nothing is spectacularly new, or fresh, or in any way different or more imaginative than what we have previously seen.

 

[fireproof78]

(who of us really care for the klingon war?).

Well, I do. I always wondered about the source of conflict in TOS, and why the Organians felt the need to put a stop to it.

 

[Rahul]

Well, I do. I always wondered about the source of conflict in TOS, and why the Organians felt the need to put a stop to it.

But the only thing we didn't know was how it started. We do that now. It was some religious nutjob wanting to unify the houses. Even though that makes no sense at all and doesn't fit with the presentation of klingons on ENT and ESPECIALLY not with those on TOS or the TOS movies. But we know they won't achieve lasting peace on this show, an uneasy truth at best. But also, that nobody is going to win the war, or that anything drastically will happen. Which takes a lot of steam out of the arc, IMO.

But then again, we return to the "preguel/recorded-games"-problem and analogy.

 

[fireproof78]

But the only thing we didn't know was how it started. We do that now. It was some religious nutjob wanting to unify the houses. Even though that makes no sense at all and doesn't fit with the presentation of klingons on ENT and ESPECIALLY not with those on TOS or the TOS movies. But we know they won't achieve lasting peace on this show, an uneasy truth at best. But also, that nobody is going to win the war, or that anything drastically will happen. Which takes a lot of steam out of the arc, IMO.

But then again, we return to the "preguel/recorded-games"-problem and analogy.

Probably so, because I am curious to see how it started, and the internal politics of the Klingon Empire, which I have never been interested in before.

 

[Rahul]

Probably so, because I am curious to see how it started, and the internal politics of the Klingon Empire, which I have never been interested in before.

Hm, interesting. The last time I was interested in internal klingon politics was probably TNG's Redemption part I & II, and of course The undiscovered country. But besides that? Not really. I think of the entire klingon plot as the weakest part of Discovery so far.

 

[fireproof78]

Hm, interesting. The last time I was interested in internal klingon politics was probably TNG's Redemption part I & II, and of course The undiscovered country. But besides that? Not really. I think of the entire klingon plot as the weakest part of Discovery so far.

Since I think the franchise's obsession with Klingons and their politics has been the weakest point, especially since there is constantly a threat of war with them (Klingon Civil Car, dissolution of Khitomer Accords, reestablishing the Khitomer accords, Worf's dishonored/not dishonored, etc).

So, if the Klingons are the weakest point, then I can see how that would trend over to DSC.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Prime, Kelvin, why bother with semantics?

 

[Gate11au]

I having issues with tone of the show i understand the need to update the look of ship i can get past the holograms and the klingons that have foreheads ENT then don't ENT TOS and the have them. i can look past that its taking me time but i can it like worf having ridges in TNG and at first i was like what hes not a klingon but i can work with it and live with it it a tone thing its darker than most star trek episodes ( we get some dark ones ) but it feels like it missing the idealism that the TOS had and i think i am having hard time with at ATM because they said it 10 years before Kirk and it feels like there no reason for it to be there in that time if they set it 24 cen or even 50 years after TOS or TNG i could see them changing after the Dominion thing or some major disaster and get a bit darker for a bit but the time they say it in was a time of kirk. i know some ppl think other wise i am just not liking the tone and it feels a little strange not sure what it is it just hard to get in to can put my finger on it tho.
tho i will keep watching and see how it gose.

IMO