Wasn't it dad's advice that caused the screw up/war?
Is it time to put Star Trek to rest?
- Thread starter Dar70
- Start date
I don’t think so? I think it was her being damaged. Things were always going to go down the way they went down on the Shenzhou bridge. I think exploring Burnham’s PTSD as the cause of her actions is far more interesting to explore than her getting bad advice from Dad.
You'd have a drinking game of how long it takes in the first act to warn her enemies ''You will fail.''
I was often partial to a Klingon-captain show, regardless of the extra expense of it.
Chamberlain didn't then go to jail, get put on a Lancaster fueled by magic mushrooms that can end the war by dropping bombs on Hitler's bathroom, then deals with a homicidal ENIAC in the next season.Chamberlain is a historical figure of note, not sure too many folks think of him as remarkable.
though that would be a good show.
Chamberlain is a historical figure of note, not sure too many folks think of him as remarkable.
He was a politician from the 1930's (and from what I've heard rather a good one other than that ONE thing). And you know who he is and can toss his name around in casual conversation. How is that not remarkable?
I'd watch.
I would be all in for a Romulan political thriller. With smart Romulans, please.
Which I strongly disagree with because it sends the opposite message of what is claimed.
I did.Chamberlain is a historical figure of note, not sure too many folks think of him as remarkable.
Might be only one person but I found him interesting in history.
Okay, get the torches and pitchforks out. But I think what they need to do is not blow everything up and start over. That was tried with the 2009 film already, anyway. I think what needs to be done is exactly what was done before with TNG.
By that I mean, jump 75 years into the future after the TNG/DS9/Voyager/Picard era, put a brand new crew on a brand new Enterprise (none of whom are related to previous characters or come from established lore), and go off on a set of new adventures that has little to nothing to do with what's come before. Occasional references, one-off tie ins, sure. Keep the continuity intact. But not a show based on nostalgia but rather one that, like TNG, is very circumspect about talking about or tying into what has come before.
Just a new Star Trek show that follows the old formula that made TOS and TNG work and that most people in the general public still think of as what Star Trek is.
By that I mean, jump 75 years into the future after the TNG/DS9/Voyager/Picard era, put a brand new crew on a brand new Enterprise (none of whom are related to previous characters or come from established lore), and go off on a set of new adventures that has little to nothing to do with what's come before. Occasional references, one-off tie ins, sure. Keep the continuity intact. But not a show based on nostalgia but rather one that, like TNG, is very circumspect about talking about or tying into what has come before.
Just a new Star Trek show that follows the old formula that made TOS and TNG work and that most people in the general public still think of as what Star Trek is.
Please do. Foundation has improved by leaps and bounds; it deserves more viewership. I hope it goes at least five seasons.
Why not stay in the umpty-umpth century where Disco ended up?
I was going to say something similar! Please, oh PLEASE, stop with the prequal-itis that seems to infect so much media in general. I don't need to know when Spock first met Kirk, or how a cute little Anakin became a Sith Lord with midiclorians nor do I need to know where/when Wolverine got his claws, etc. etc. etc.
The problem I have with these type things is that it actually drives me out of the story. As I watch nu-Trek I keep thinking: That doesn't look/feel/sound/match the history of what came before of the people that this show is suppose to be about?!; Klingons don't look or act like that!; Spock has a sister that was never ever mentioned before?! Archer knew about the Borg?! and on and on. Go forward not back (but not to the 30th century!!). That was Roddenberry's vision.
Technology wise the creative teams hands would be tied from the getgo, thanks to Discovery showing us no real tech growth for eight centuries.
Well, Roddenberry's vision also involved making money and using familiar elements too.
But, to the broader point of being taken out of a story I have the opposite reaction. If I start going "this doesn't feel right" it has more to do with characters than any design element. If the story has me focusing on those elements then it has failed as an entertainment vehicle because my focus shifted to minutia of set dressing or make up than the story being told or the characters on their journey.
It's what I wanted. I'm a fan. The show seems to have other fans. Clearly it's what some fans wanted.
So.... Strange New Worlds?
I'd love to see the official unit of measurement for a lot of fans. Is it Reddit upvotes? Downvotes? YouTube rage comments?
Quantitative analysis would be very helpful.
Sadly, the old retailer in me knows that when people say, "if only you sold X it would be better. I know a lot of people who would buy it."
And then it sits and sits.
Pretty much the opposite of you and fireproof..
....lots of negativity on Reddit and YouTube.....Similar threads
